TextTextText
In the past, judical elections and campaigns were held to a higher standard or code of conduct than the national and state elections. Looks like the standard dosn't apply anymore. Negative campaigning and dirty tricks seems to work in Tulsa County. Do we want our elected judges to be the winner of a game of mudslinging and misconduct? If they achieve their office with unethical and maybe illegal conduct, how can they be qualified to sit in judgement of others?
quote:
Originally posted by Madame X
TextTextText
In the past, judical elections and campaigns were held to a higher standard or code of conduct than the national and state elections. Looks like the standard dosn't apply anymore. Negative campaigning and dirty tricks seems to work in Tulsa County. Do we want our elected judges to be the winner of a game of mudslinging and misconduct? If they achieve their office with unethical and maybe illegal conduct, how can they be qualified to sit in judgement of others?
Aren't you the person that got arrested stealing signs for a judge candidate?
Her name was reported as Virginia Howie...or something like that...and we all know the press never gets their facts mixed up.
The name seems to match..
I followed the Judicial races more this year than any year previous. I much "negative campaigning" other than from the repubs with their "oh yeah, well candidate y supported kerry" ads.
I never saw a single negative thing from kuehn but I saw plenty of things from the wall campaign that were either negative or "playing the victim." A jail employee messed up one fact that he told the world and youd've though Kuehn was putting babies on spikes from the outrage spit out from the Wall campaign. The detail was cleared up, it was no big deal. The whole thing got 10X more press from the Wall campaign than it got on it's own right. The sign thing (which I'm sure you're well aware of) was probably the deal breaker. It doesn't matter how legal or not the action is, you NEVER want to be caught with anything related to the opponents campaign. If you're gonna pick it up, go straight to the nearest dumpster.
Also, there was plenty of negative campaigning on here from Caroline's sister as well as a lawyer who supported her by quoting court cases and nitpicking active casework.
No matter what the Wall campaign could claim, or even prove, the Kuehn campaign did; the Wall campaign was in it as well. Unless you kept your own nose clean, don't complain about how dirty someone else's is.
The Tulsa World listed the person arrested as Virginia Diane Howe. There is no other Diane Howe listed in the election board records in Tulsa, except for a Virginia Diane Howe.
It is OK to admit you are the same person.
I admire you for being politically active, and I love anyone who picks up signs in the right-of-way.
quote:
Originally posted by Madame X
Her name was reported as Virginia Howie...or something like that...and we all know the press never gets their facts mixed up.
That's kind of a vague answer. Are you saying it wasn't you?
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
The name seems to match..
I followed the Judicial races more this year than any year previous. I much "negative campaigning" other than from the repubs with their "oh yeah, well candidate y supported kerry" ads.
I never saw a single negative thing from kuehn but I saw plenty of things from the wall campaign that were either negative or "playing the victim." A jail employee messed up one fact that he told the world and youd've though Kuehn was putting babies on spikes from the outrage spit out from the Wall campaign. The detail was cleared up, it was no big deal. The whole thing got 10X more press from the Wall campaign than it got on it's own right. The sign thing (which I'm sure you're well aware of) was probably the deal breaker. It doesn't matter how legal or not the action is, you NEVER want to be caught with anything related to the opponents campaign. If you're gonna pick it up, go straight to the nearest dumpster.
Also, there was plenty of negative campaigning on here from Caroline's sister as well as a lawyer who supported her by quoting court cases and nitpicking active casework.
No matter what the Wall campaign could claim, or even prove, the Kuehn campaign did; the Wall campaign was in it as well. Unless you kept your own nose clean, don't complain about how dirty someone else's is.
"You Protest too much sir" I guess my question caused quite a sting in your sense of moral being...You did not even answer the question ...instead you felt compelled to attack and dissent mis-information....when you have no need for the truth...lies suffice and spread like a plague. If someone does not agree with you then, it is obvious their civil rights are frivolous...you would have made a good Nazi.
quote:
Originally posted by Madame X
"You Protest too much sir" I guess my question caused quite a sting in your sense of moral being...You did not even answer the question ...instead you felt compelled to attack and dissent mis-information....when you have no need for the truth...lies suffice and spread like a plague. If someone does not agree with you then, it is obvious their civil rights are frivolous...you would have made a good Nazi.
Point out one inaccuracy in anything I said.
Thank you.
quote:
Originally posted by Madame X
You did not even answer the question...
Uhhhh...did you not see MY question, Madame X? The reason I'm asking is because you didn't answer it and it would make you look kind of silly if you complained about someone not answering your question when you didn't answer someone else's question.
quote:
...instead you felt compelled to attack and dissent mis-information....
quote:
...you would have made a good Nazi.
What an revealing juxtapositioning of two comments in the same post. That's kind of unfortunate for you because it kinda makes you look like a hypocrite.
By the way, how do you "dissent information"?
One more question, if you're willing to answer IT. You're not by any chance a law school student are you?
quote:
Originally posted by Madame X
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
The name seems to match..
I followed the Judicial races more this year than any year previous. I much "negative campaigning" other than from the repubs with their "oh yeah, well candidate y supported kerry" ads.
I never saw a single negative thing from kuehn but I saw plenty of things from the wall campaign that were either negative or "playing the victim." A jail employee messed up one fact that he told the world and youd've though Kuehn was putting babies on spikes from the outrage spit out from the Wall campaign. The detail was cleared up, it was no big deal. The whole thing got 10X more press from the Wall campaign than it got on it's own right. The sign thing (which I'm sure you're well aware of) was probably the deal breaker. It doesn't matter how legal or not the action is, you NEVER want to be caught with anything related to the opponents campaign. If you're gonna pick it up, go straight to the nearest dumpster.
Also, there was plenty of negative campaigning on here from Caroline's sister as well as a lawyer who supported her by quoting court cases and nitpicking active casework.
No matter what the Wall campaign could claim, or even prove, the Kuehn campaign did; the Wall campaign was in it as well. Unless you kept your own nose clean, don't complain about how dirty someone else's is.
"You Protest too much sir" I guess my question caused quite a sting in your sense of moral being...You did not even answer the question ...instead you felt compelled to attack and dissent mis-information....when you have no need for the truth...lies suffice and spread like a plague. If someone does not agree with you then, it is obvious their civil rights are frivolous...you would have made a good Nazi.
Scoreboard!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Is this not you posting on Batesline during the primary against Dana Kuehn?
Dana Kuehn's use of the area police department's endorsements is scary. Our system has checks and balances...not rubber stamps. How can she claim to be "fair" if she is in lockstep with the police and district attorney. That is injustice....not justice
http://www.batesline.com/archives/002589.html
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by Madame X
"You Protest too much sir" I guess my question caused quite a sting in your sense of moral being...You did not even answer the question ...instead you felt compelled to attack and dissent mis-information....when you have no need for the truth...lies suffice and spread like a plague. If someone does not agree with you then, it is obvious their civil rights are frivolous...you would have made a good Nazi.
Point out one inaccuracy in anything I said.
Thank you.
I stopped counting at 5. I did not post the question to discuss this issue. I will not be posting anymore replys. You obviously know everything there is to know about everything and unable of any discussion which requires an open mind. The truth will come out, but not on this venue. High Tech Lynching bores me.
quote:
Originally posted by papaspot
quote:
Originally posted by Madame X
You did not even answer the question...
Uhhhh...did you not see MY question, Madame X? The reason I'm asking is because you didn't answer it and it would make you look kind of silly if you complained about someone not answering your question when you didn't answer someone else's question.
I believe you generalization was a bit hasty...Your argument based on the large part of the issue only has a sample which is far too small to make a reasonable deduction and shows a bias. I will not make future post to this forum. I am bored with High Tech Lynchings.
quote:
...instead you felt compelled to attack and dissent mis-information....
quote:
...you would have made a good Nazi.
What an revealing juxtapositioning of two comments in the same post. That's kind of unfortunate for you because it kinda makes you look like a hypocrite.
By the way, how do you "dissent information"?
One more question, if you're willing to answer IT. You're not by any chance a law school student are you?
quote:
Originally posted by papaspot
quote:
Originally posted by Madame X
Her name was reported as Virginia Howie...or something like that...and we all know the press never gets their facts mixed up.
That's kind of a vague answer. Are you saying it wasn't you?
My thoughts exactly!
Let's lay off of madame x.
She didn't realize we are all sharks, looking for our next meal.
I think the topic is a good one for discussion.
Are appointed judges better than elected ones? Is there a better way to select judges?
I have always liked the way radio stations select winners...the tenth caller gets to be judge for a week! Or how about a lottery...put all the attorneys names in a hat and pick one?
Maybe we could have a game show like Jeopardy of legal questions? High score wins a robe!
I think the duties should be rotated amongst registered voters, similar to jury duty.
I agree that judges should be appointed.
I don't want judges looking over their backs because they did something that might be unpopular, like following the law and Constitution.
That said, I think Madame X is being less than upfront.
I agree that judges should be appointed, with limited terms, subject to removal. Since they cannot discuss the issues they will be deciding, when two judges run against eachother, all they can do is discuss character, which is likely to dissolve into petty name calling and vicious rumors. Obviously, politicians do that too, but those of us who so desire can ultimately vote for someone based upon what they stand for, what they hope to accomplish. We can only vote for judges based on vague endorsements, non-specific ads, and generic character references. Its nothing but a popularity contest among lawyers.
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
ley's lay off of madame x.
She didn't realize we are all sharks, looking for our next meal.
I agree to a certain point. On the other hand, when someone complains about personal attacks and, in the very next sentence tells someone that they'd make a good Nazi, they kind give up their status as an innocent victim.
I dunno, I just finished reading "The Innocent Man" by John Grisham, a non-fiction account of how two innocent men from Ada were rail-roaded by everyone from the local cops, to the OSBI, to the prosecutor, to the trial judge and the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals.
Two men lost twelve years of their lives in part due to the incompetence of the trial judge.
I remembered hearing about the case when the two men were released from prison back in '99. The details of the way the state handled the case were shocking to say the least. He also mentioned in the book two more men who had the same results with the Ada justice system.
Fortunately, that judge was voted out in 1990. I think it's good for the people for whom the judge is charged with protecting their liberties and the rest of the public's safety interests do have accountability via elections.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
I dunno, I just finished reading "The Innocent Man" by John Grisham, a non-fiction account of how two innocent men from Ada were rail-roaded by everyone from the local cops, to the OSBI, to the prosecutor, to the trial judge and the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals.
Two men lost twelve years of their lives in part due to the incompetence of the trial judge.
I remembered hearing about the case when the two men were released from prison back in '99. The details of the way the state handled the case were shocking to say the least. He also mentioned in the book two more men who had the same results with the Ada justice system.
Fortunately, that judge was voted out in 1990. I think it's good for the people for whom the judge is charged with protecting their liberties and the rest of the public's safety interests do have accountability via elections.
Not only that Conan, but one of the guys, if I recall even died of liver cancer right after he won a settlement against the city of Ada. Presumably because he drank very heavily due to the continued levels of stress in his life ruined by corruption. The people who conspire to send people to prison like this should themselves go to jail for a very, very long time.
I highly recommend this book. A word of caution though: it's pretty depressing. I don't see how anyone could read it and not be changed by the story, I certainly was. I have a better appreciation of why we do have the appeals systems in place that we do. I've never been a death penalty opponent, I've just never felt the death penalty is any sort of deterrent- rising homicide rates tend to bear that out.
I've always been a big Grisham fan through movie adaptations of his work and have read all his books now except for "Skipping Christmas" in the last year.
Ron Williamson, the man you are speaking of, had severe mental problems (at various times diagnosed as bi-polar and/or schizophrenic) which went un-treated at various times during his incarceration.
The trial judge, prosecutor, and his own court-appointed defense attorney neglected to recognize his mental illness during his trial. As well, the judge refused to hear a defense motion regarding exculpatory evidence until after the trial. The prosecution purposely withheld a taped confession from another suspect from the defense. The judge in this case also refused to allow the defense to have their own forensic experts, since it would have to come from public funds.
I usually wait for a book to come out in paperback, but I've been anxious to read this ever since I'd heard Grisham was tackling this project. Borders has the book 30% off in hard cover.
On the flip side, I felt like Judge Wall was being too lenient and allowing criminals back on the street far too soon. Voters had the opportunity to remove her from office. If her successor sides too much with prosecutors as Richard O'Carroll believes she will, we will have the opportunity to remove her from office as well.
I have held a dim view of the death penalty ever since a group of diligent law students found that nearly a dozen death-row inmates in my native Illinois were wrongly convicted.
That was more than 10 percent of the inmates on death row. That's horrific.
That largely led then-Gov. George Ryan to commute all the death sentences in the state right before he left office. Ryan was a crook, and his conviction on racketeering a few months ago proves it. But that was one thing he did right.
I think I'll buy that book Conan. I have alot of close ties to Ada (relatives there, spent many holidays there) and appreciate your recommendation.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
I have held a dim view of the death penalty ever since a group of diligent law students found that nearly a dozen death-row inmates in my native Illinois were wrongly convicted.
That was more than 10 percent of the inmates on death row. That's horrific.
That largely led then-Gov. George Ryan to commute all the death sentences in the state right before he left office. Ryan was a crook, and his conviction on racketeering a few months ago proves it. But that was one thing he did right.
I'm amazed that Illinois didn't have more people on death row, based on their population vs. Oklahoma.
A friend of mine lives just outside St. Louis on the Ill. side. He was outraged when Ryan did that, but it's not like he set them free. I'd far rather be put down then to face 40 or 50 years behind bars. At least that guaranteed that Ill. wouldn't kill any wrongly convicted people.
As I said, I'm not so much an opponent of capital punishment as I just don't really see the need for or point of it. It's definitely not the deterrent it's claimed to be. It's Old Testament "eye for an eye" stuff. Life without parole is a far worse sentence than death, IMO.
quote:
Originally posted by snopes
I think I'll buy that book Conan. I have alot of close ties to Ada (relatives there, spent many holidays there) and appreciate your recommendation.
You will likely recognize quite a few names then. There are plenty of names of criminals and law men from the headlines over the years that anyone who has read the TW or Daily Oklahoman has heard of at one point or another. I think you might also appreciate Grisham's sardonic wit at many turning points in the story.
<Conan wrote:
Life without parole is a far worse sentence than death, IMO.
<end clip>
It's also less expensive. Once you add in all the necessary appeals and legal fees that come with it, it's cheaper to send a con to the penitentiary for the rest of his life than go through all the stuff that comes with a death-penalty case.
Funny how you mention your friend from near St. Louis. I also lived near St. Louis at the time Ryan commuted the death sentences. I was mad at Ryan because I thought he did it to temper all his legal troubles at the time.
But as more information came out and as more time passed, I think Ryan did it because he was genuinely horrified with all the errors in the state's death penalty system and sought to do the right thing. I now think his action was proper.
Too bad his moral compass didn't work with corruption, as well.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by snopes
I think I'll buy that book Conan. I have alot of close ties to Ada (relatives there, spent many holidays there) and appreciate your recommendation.
You will likely recognize quite a few names then. There are plenty of names of criminals and law men from the headlines over the years that anyone who has read the TW or Daily Oklahoman has heard of at one point or another. I think you might also appreciate Grisham's sardonic wit at many turning points in the story.
I'm actually kind of pumped about reading it. I plan to get it tonight and read it over the Thanksgiving holiday. A good time to read, when your belly is so full of turkey that you can hardly do anything else <BURP>.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
<Conan wrote:
Life without parole is a far worse sentence than death, IMO.
<end clip>
It's also less expensive. Once you add in all the necessary appeals and legal fees that come with it, it's cheaper to send a con to the penitentiary for the rest of his life than go through all the stuff that comes with a death-penalty case.
Funny how you mention your friend from near St. Louis. I also lived near St. Louis at the time Ryan commuted the death sentences. I was mad at Ryan because I thought he did it to temper all his legal troubles at the time.
But as more information came out and as more time passed, I think Ryan did it because he was genuinely horrified with all the errors in the state's death penalty system and sought to do the right thing. I now think his action was proper.
Too bad his moral compass didn't work with corruption, as well.
Jim lives up in Belleville.
The state has to provide appeals lawyers for death row inmates only, so far as I know. Anyone else in the prison population, once convicted, has to draft their own briefs, hire a lawyer with their own money, or find a lawyer who believes enough in their case they will take it pro bono. I might be wrong on that point, but I believe that's the case.
Conan, I'm reading The Innocent Man by Grisham. An excellent read and I'm about halfway through the book. The corruption of the legal system in Ada is not only mind-boggling, but the ineptness of some of the lawyers for the defense as well. My opinion thus far is that I hope that Peterson (the DA) gets his a__S handed to him on a silver platter by the attention this book should bring. I can't believe that he is still in office after all of this. I'm actually considering writing him a letter condemning his sorry butt and the rest of the people involved. Like I said, I have relatives in Ada and some of them actually know this clown. I called one of them Wednesday night and they said he is really worried about the attention this book will bring.
These are comments from other members of the congregation at the church he attends. CHURCH! What does he go there for? To wash the filth off after a week of God knows what?
The detectives and DA down there oughta go to prison for about 20 years and see how the shoe fits on the other foot.
I absolutely HATE corruption at any level and the crap that took place down there literally takes the cake.
Judges should not be allows to sit on the bench who have been trained as lawyers because of their mind set by the law professor in the classes. It should be the duty of the lawyers to explain a layman who sits in judgment of other laymen.
quote:
Originally posted by shadows
Judges should not be allows to sit on the bench who have been trained as lawyers because of their mind set by the law professor in the classes. It should be the duty of the lawyers to explain a layman who sits in judgment of other laymen.
Sounds good in theory but it would never work in the real world. There is a lot of
case law and
legal principles that go into presiding over a case. If you put a layman in there, both sides are going to have to argue every minuscule point. Trials would take about seventy times as long.
Also, it is the duty of a judge to decide what is lawful evidence and to ensure proper procedures during a trial.
If you had a layman presiding, every case would be appealled. That's no way to run a judicial system.
Case law should never prevail over the citizen rights of the intent of the founders in the adoption of the English law. Although in the beginning it was incorporated as a starting point to establish a judicial system that was acceptable in the formation of the states. I believe the backward country of China, with its thousands of years of knowledge, requires 3 judges in their courts but 2 must be laymen.
Under our system it has been suggested that juries be made up of lawyers because the common citizen does not have access the judges chambers where most cases are tried before going into the courtroom.
If therefore the judge is well versed in the law and the case findings; what is the need for the lawyer to explain them to him?
Under the English law the king appointed the judges so let the president appoint our judges for life.
Do you think that will fly?
quote:
Originally posted by shadows
Case law should never prevail over the citizen rights...
It doesn't.
quote:
...of the intent of the founders in the adoption of the English law.
Well, in the first place, I'm not into ancestor worship so the only "intent" of the "founding fathers" that I give a rat's donkey about is their obvious intent that the law be allowed to evolve (within the framework of the Constitution) along with society.
quote:
Although in the beginning it was incorporated as a starting point to establish a judicial system that was acceptable in the formation of the states.
It goes back a lot further than that. It wasn't, as you claim a "starting point." It was patterned after the English judicial system that relies COMPLETELY on case law. (The UK doesn't have a constitution.)
quote:
I believe the backward country of China, with its thousands of years of knowledge, requires 3 judges in their courts but 2 must be laymen.
They also execute people for criticizing the government (i.e. the COURTS). Ya really think we should follow their lead?
quote:
Under our system it has been suggested that juries be made up of lawyers because the common citizen does not have access the judges chambers where most cases are tried before going into the courtroom.
I get the impression you don't have a real deep understanding of the judicial system. Cases are not tried in the judges' chambers. How ridiculous. They're tried in open court. Ya know WHY? Because the people that make the only important decision HEAR the case in open court.
quote:
If therefore the judge is well versed in the law and the case findings; what is the need for the lawyer to explain them to him?
Oh oh. It's worse than I thought. Lemme explain something to you. The lawyers don't EXPLAIN ANYTHING to the judge. They make a point and try to support it while the other side tries to refute it. Now if you have lay people hearing the cases, it won't be the most complex points of a case that are heard and argued. It will be EVERY last little DETAIL. An average case of simple burglary charge would take approximately 170 years to try. Ya think we've got backlog NOW? The entire judicial system would come to a screeching halt while every little detail was argued.
quote:
Under the English law the king appointed the judges so let the president appoint our judges for life.
Uhhhhhhh...with the advice and consent of the Senate, the president DOES appoint
federal judges for life.
quote:
Do you think that will fly?
Do I think what will fly? The president appointing judges for life? Yeah, I'd say it's been flying pretty well for a couple of centuries.
quote:
Originally posted by snopes
Conan, I'm reading The Innocent Man by Grisham. An excellent read and I'm about halfway through the book. The corruption of the legal system in Ada is not only mind-boggling, but the ineptness of some of the lawyers for the defense as well. My opinion thus far is that I hope that Peterson (the DA) gets his a__S handed to him on a silver platter by the attention this book should bring. I can't believe that he is still in office after all of this. I'm actually considering writing him a letter condemning his sorry butt and the rest of the people involved. Like I said, I have relatives in Ada and some of them actually know this clown. I called one of them Wednesday night and they said he is really worried about the attention this book will bring.
These are comments from other members of the congregation at the church he attends. CHURCH! What does he go there for? To wash the filth off after a week of God knows what?
The detectives and DA down there oughta go to prison for about 20 years and see how the shoe fits on the other foot.
I absolutely HATE corruption at any level and the crap that took place down there literally takes the cake.
My mother gave me Dennis Fritz's book for my birthday over the weekend. I'm anxious to start reading it, though I'm already reading two other books. I might just have to read this first and get back to the others afterwards [;)]
The lead investigator in that case died on June 30 this year, just a few days after giving testimony in the Glen Gore case. I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall during that trial. Oh, and one of the reasons Glen Gore got re-tried was (if I understood this right) because the jury was not told that two other men had already been "convicted" of raping and murdering Debbie Carter.
I finished "The Innocent Man" over the Thanksgiving holiday. Great read and I highly recommend the book. Conan, you mentioned Dennis Fritz's book, what book is that?
Snopes, it's "Journey Toward Justice", it's being cross-marketed along with "Dreams of Ada" (1987 book about the Ward and Fontenot case) and "The Innocent Man".
They've got a special on Amazon right now for the first two titles I mentioned:
http://www.amazon.com/Journey-Toward-Justice-Dennis-Fritz/dp/1931643954
I had stocked up on about six new books the week before Thanksgiving and I got about five more books over the weekend for my birthday, so I think I might wait awhile to buy "Dreams of Ada".
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Snopes, it's "Journey Toward Justice", it's being cross-marketed along with "Dreams of Ada" (1987 book about the Ward and Fontenot case) and "The Innocent Man".
They've got a special on Amazon right now for the first two titles I mentioned:
http://www.amazon.com/Journey-Toward-Justice-Dennis-Fritz/dp/1931643954
I had stocked up on about six new books the week before Thanksgiving and I got about five more books over the weekend for my birthday, so I think I might wait awhile to buy "Dreams of Ada".
Thanks Conan I'll check those out!
Your point is well made when you state "within the frame work of the constitution" where as for personal purposes our constitution has been rewritten on latex rubber so it can be stretched to cover personal items.
The point is well made as English case law established can be quoted in the courts of USA even today.
Our constitution written on latex rubber can be stretched even to cover personal items of our rulers.
This law of the land was patterned from the laws of Athens's, Rome, The Church, and England by a group of people including laymen, selected by the states, with instructions not to surrender the state rights. The promise that the states could withdraw from the union was the cause of the civil war.
The authors placed it in the corner of the building for some three years before adding the people bill of rights because Franklin ( a copper smith) had said "I smell a rat and went home in the beginning. After the ten amendments were added the state reprehensive submitted it to their state governments. It was not until Justice Cardozo in his opinion rules that by assorption the constitution applies to all states (1937) that was a complete takeover of the states rights if need to be.
China may execute critics but in the USA we have evolved to where we will not only execute men, women and children as well as governments at will in undeclared wars.
The Justice of Peace courts were neighborhood courts, designed for laymen and were accessible to the common citizen but we were reaching a million lawyers licensed or one half of the worlds license lawyers so we voted to elinaminate this peoples court and turn all justice over to the lawyers. The saying was a court of "find for the Plaintiff"
Yes it is worse than the laymen without recourse can think as he builds a fire under the mythical bird to reduce it to ashes and thinks the Phoenix will rise again from the ashes.
quote:
Originally posted by shadows
. . . . . . The saying was a court of "find for the Plaintiff"
Yes it is worse than the laymen without recourse can think as he builds a fire under the mythical bird to reduce it to ashes and thinks the Phoenix will rise again from the ashes.
I'm pretty sure you have not adequately explained your point of view. For us readers, your point is surely difficult to understand, as you weave between English law and the rising Phoenix.
Judicial appointment is probably a good procedure. If you are a litigant, I assure you that you want an impartial arbiter presiding over your case. You don't want a judge who has a political allegience to a particular point of view or to certain political parties or certain politic
ians. I am not so naive as to believe that personal views and predilections do not affect
appointed judge's decisions ... but the potential is much less likely, and the appearance of impropriety is diminished.
Lawyers, however much disdained, have an important role to play in that system. They are advocates within this
adversary system -- a system that believes that disputes are best resolved (and "truth" sometimes elicited) when opposing parties advocate their legal and factual position before a neutral arbiter. In the case of legal questions, that arbiter is a judge. In the case of factual questions, that arbiter is a jury.
Everyone hates lawyers, until they need one.
Alas, this is getting too theoretical.
quote:
Originally posted by Trams
Alas, this is getting too theoretical.
I thought you summed it up in pretty real world terms.
We are entering into the computer age. At ones fingertips are thousands of findings of past judges. In the computer is the knowledge of a thousand lawyers and judges ready for instant recall in printed form. If we are to use the past decisions of pass finding then they can be fed in this monster and get almost an instant decision and percentages of such findings. The kitten has grown into a lion to where it roars when some want to put a chain around its neck to let the human element have a place in their justice. We are having a hard time in separating democracy from dictatorship as we force on others doctorial powers in the name of justice. We have increase the life span by machines but we have not been able to expand the mental capacity of the human brain by adding memory cards. The time will come soon where local courts with local elected judges will be the cry of the citizen as they look at the corruption that political patriotism produces in appointing judges.
quote:
Originally posted by shadows
We are entering into the computer age. At ones fingertips are thousands of findings of past judges. In the computer is the knowledge of a thousand lawyers and judges ready for instant recall in printed form. If we are to use the past decisions of pass finding then they can be fed in this monster and get almost an instant decision and percentages of such findings. The kitten has grown into a lion to where it roars when some want to put a chain around its neck to let the human element have a place in their justice. We are having a hard time in separating democracy from dictatorship as we force on others doctorial powers in the name of justice. We have increase the life span by machines but we have not been able to expand the mental capacity of the human brain by adding memory cards. The time will come soon where local courts with local elected judges will be the cry of the citizen as they look at the corruption that political patriotism produces in appointing judges.
By that logic, we could appoint lay doctors too, couldn't we? Ya get sick, go to the quasi-doctor and he just enters your symptoms into the computer and prescribes whatever the computer recommends.
Or is that what you meant by "doctorial powers"? [;)]
Shadows, I sort of know what you're getting at (scary, I know) -- with the Internet, we have access to tons of information. If nothing else, you can assist your lawyer by citing case law from the Internet.
That does not mean I advocate citizen lawyering -- not by a long shot. Being an attorney is essentially a trade, not unlike a plumber, electrician, or carpenter. In all these vocations, you get some schooling (vo-ed or law school), then have an apprenticeship before they turn you out in the real world.
With the Internet, I suppose I could look up enough informantion to replace the water pipes under my kitchen sink. But since I'm inexperienced, the likelihood I'll screw something up is pretty high. That's why you call an experienced tradesman to do it for you.
A citizen acting as his own attorney is so fraught with peril I can't see anyone who's in his right mind would do it. I see no point in clogging up the courts with citizen-lawyers who are learning on the fly and making court cases proceed at a snail's pace.
If a lawyer is accused of a crime, you know what happens? He calls another lawyer. You know why? Because another lawyer who has some distance from the case can think of angles that the accused lawyer may have overlooked.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
Being an attorney is essentially a trade, not unlike a plumber, electrician, or carpenter. In all these vocations, you get some schooling (vo-ed or law school), then have an apprenticeship before they turn you out in the real world.
What apprenticeship for lawyers are you referring to? The process I followed was completing law school and passing the bar. I do believe there should be an apprenticeship of some sort for lawyers, however, since "law school" is focused on teaching the law and not on being a lawyer. Stated otherwise, there are no "lawyer schools" out there.
Being a lawyer is more than knowing the law, which to your credit you pointed out in your post.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
The process I followed was completing law school and passing the bar.
So are you also an engineer by any chance?
I'd say law school and passing the bar, especially the latter, are certainly strenuous.
Plus the fact that most law school students also are accepted in internship programs, which also provide plenty of real-world experience.
In a recent visit to the doctor there was a question on visible signs of an affliction of an age old ailment. I took with me to his office the printout from the internet; some twenty pages with pictures and the information that was available from some of the leading physicians from all over the country. The doctor called in an associate for further advise. The associate after scanning the internet pictures and articles of leading well known doctors ask if he could copy the information which I said that it was available to me on the internet for reprinting and he could have those copies..
The recorders that adorn the walls bookcases of the law office today are ready for the trash cans as with the portable scanner they are recorded on the mainframes for instant recall and printing, To who have a case through its source requires hours of research whereas; it requires minutes to printout the case law that determines the future of the accused or the assumed facts of law in litigations.
The citizen-lawyers, such as Lincoln, who served two terms in the state legislation before he studied law from the light of the fireplace to pass the bar examination .
The same information is available to the citizen as written in the available books that are studied in the law schools of today. The obstacle of the required college hours that must be acquired (including football) has stopped many citizens from taking and passing the bar examination. Up until recent years an application could be made to take the bar examination from mail order studies. This same once practice should also be re-installed at the internet level. If this were to happen the patriotism in appointing judges would have to be revisited.
The acquired field experience of the plumber and electrician far outdistances the newbe with a bar certificate looking for the courthouse.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
That does not mean I advocate citizen lawyering -- not by a long shot. Being an attorney is essentially a trade, not unlike a plumber, electrician, or carpenter. . . .
A citizen acting as his own attorney is so fraught with peril I can't see anyone who's in his right mind would do it. I see no point in clogging up the courts with citizen-lawyers who are learning on the fly and making court cases proceed at a snail's pace.
If a lawyer is accused of a crime, you know what happens? He calls another lawyer. You know why? Because another lawyer who has some distance from the case can think of angles that the accused lawyer may have overlooked.
I couldn't agree more fully. At a basic level, the procedural rules alone would be enough to trip up a citizen-lawyer. What if you file your motion late? What if you fail to describe your claim with particularity? What if you file in the wrong court? The court system is bogged down enough without having to deal with these procedural nightmares caused by failure to understand the mulititude of applicable rules.
Also, the law can be very complex substantively. Can the average citizen lawyer understand the complexities of governmental regulation, ERISA, anti-trust, agency law?
The term "citizen-lawyering" has a quaint idealism ... but it is simply not realistic, and would result in diastrous consequences for both the individual and the system.
Shadows cited Lincoln as a citizen-lawyer. Lincoln is the exception that proves the rule that citizen lawyering is a bad idea.
Lincoln was one of the most brilliant minds in history; it's big stretch to assume that other citizen-lawyers would be as successful as he was. (And yes, he was a successful lawyer ... historians and attorneys in my native Illinois in recent years have been poring over his legal work and have noted that he was well ahead of his time.)
There are many instants where the citizen-lawyer prevailed in repeals before the OSC, There are many citizen-lawyers that could prevail in a unbiased court. There are many law diplomas issued to persons that would make better plumbers. The old cliché that he who acts as his attorney "has a fool as and attorney" is protecting the turf. To file a petition with the county court clerk equals taking a golf club down to the elate closed membership golf course to practice on their turf. Any one can attend law school if they waver their right to petition the court to take the bar examination.
quote:
Originally posted by shadows
There are many instants where the citizen-lawyer prevailed in repeals before the OSC, There are many citizen-lawyers that could prevail in a unbiased court. There are many law diplomas issued to persons that would make better plumbers. The old cliché that he who acts as his attorney "has a fool as and attorney" is protecting the turf. To file a petition with the county court clerk equals taking a golf club down to the elate closed membership golf course to practice on their turf. Any one can attend law school if they waver their right to petition the court to take the bar examination.
I think plumbers could do a better job at writing and spelling than this joker. Corrections noted below:
1. " ... prevailed in APPEALS "
2. Cliche is "anyone who acts as his own attorney has a fool for a client"
3. " ... to the ELITE closed membership"
4. " ... if they WAIVE their right"
You are possiibly right.. New computer with spell check that inserts the word and this joker didn't check the spell checker. Sorry but at least I know someone outthere is checking.
RW "Plus the fact that most law school students also are accepted in internship programs, which also provide plenty of real-world experience."
Where are you getting your information about lawyers and law school? First you talk about non-existent apprenticeships and now you believe most law students are accepted in internships where they receive "real-world experience." Maybe things have changed since I was in law school. CONAN or IP, you out there? Am I forgetting something?
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
RW "Plus the fact that most law school students also are accepted in internship programs, which also provide plenty of real-world experience."
Where are you getting your information about lawyers and law school? First you talk about non-existent apprenticeships and now you believe most law students are accepted in internships where they receive "real-world experience." Maybe things have changed since I was in law school. CONAN or IP, you out there? Am I forgetting something?
He might be referring to law students who "clerk" for law firms. I don't know what the overall percentage of students are who do this, it's not a requisite, but sure helps give them a better idea of what "lawyering" is all about.
Thx Conan. I thought that's what RW was referring to as well. Still, my recollection was that not many law students accepted these positions, primarily because of the limitations on the number of hours law students could work while attending school.
quote:
Originally posted by Trams
Judicial appointment is probably a good procedure. If you are a litigant, I assure you that you want an impartial arbiter presiding over your case. You don't want a judge who has a political allegience to a particular point of view or to certain political parties or certain politicians. I am not so naive as to believe that personal views and predilections do not affect appointed judge's decisions ... but the potential is much less likely, and the appearance of impropriety is diminished.
Unless I've mis-read the intention of your statement, appointed judges are nominated for appointment by governors and presidents. Those appointees generally are picked because they reflect the political and social views of the person appointing them- think Supreme Court nominees. Conservative presidents pick conservative justices, liberal presidents pick liberal justices. To me, that is a perfect example of partisanship on the bench.
I can't say I'm overly comfortable allowing a very miniscule and partisan portion (President and Senate) of our population to be the final say over who presides over our system of federal justice- especially at times where the president and senate majority belong to the same party. Or for that matter our governor and state legislature deciding on state-level judges.
That said, I also believe that less than 10% of all Americans truly put any thought into their participation in our political and voting systems. Very few people take the time to fully research a candidate beyond a sound bite or headline, and in the judicial system, most judges operate in relative anonymity to the general public.
I believe that judges being elected through non-partisan elections is the best way to get impartial judges rather than being appointed via ideology that is in lock-step with whomever nominates them or outright cronyism. Just IMHO.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
Thx Conan. I thought that's what RW was referring to as well. Still, my recollection was that not many law students accepted these positions, primarily because of the limitations on the number of hours law students could work while attending school.
Where the heck has IP been? What's it been now a month?
He's been really scarce since the election.
Methinks he was a Republican.
"It's my recollection ..." Guido says.
So how long has it been since you were in law school, guido? Is your recollection within a decade of now?
yep
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
He's been really scarce since the election.
Methinks he was a Republican.
I think you are fabricating there, RW. I never once read anything by him that led me to believe he was a member of the GOP [;)]
I miss his sardonic wit and his exchanges with Alt.