Elements of Crime

[chapka]

Originally Posted by BOBT12

Two million people in jail (I think the US holds the world record), none of them had attorneys? ROFLMAO!!!!!!!

Wouldn't be surprised if many of them didn't. I know that in many administrative proceedings, parties with representation have a much higher success rate than unrepresented parties. (Ask your local Legal Aid office about this if you're interested). I don't know what the eqivalent statistics are for criminal cases, but I'd be very interested to know. Anyone have those statistics for pro se versus represented criminal defendants?

[weishaupt1776]

Originally Posted by chapka

My advice: if you want to understand criminal law, pick up a basic handbook like "Criminal Law in a Nutshell,"

Good advice

Originally Posted by chapka

don't believe what you hear on the internet.

Wasn't your post above "on the internet? So should we believe you, Holmes?

Originally Posted by chapka

And if any of this affects you, get a lawyer.

So what does Corpus Juris Secundum (CJS), Volume 7, Section 4, Attorney & client say? (encyclopedia of contemporary statements of American law as derived from reported cases and legislation.)

• The attorney's first duty is to the courts and the public, not to the client, and wherever the duties to his client conflict with those he owes as an officer of the court [color=red]in the administration of justice[/red], the former must yield to the latter.

So do the dudes with more guns get to determine what "the administration of justice" is?

Is justice explicitly defined IN LAW anywhere?

crapka, you are right i am not going to believe what you posted on the internet.

Somewheres else in CJS (need to look it up again), I read that Clients are "wards" of the court in relation with their attorneys. Also see "regarding Lawyer Discipline & other rules" and Canons 1 through 9.

crapka, look up the word attorn in a law dictionary, you neo-commie.

I want to rip your lungs out

[chapka]

Originally Posted by weishaupt1776

Wasn't your post above "on the internet? So should we believe you, Holmes?

Of course not. I'm an anonymous stranger on the Internet. I'm perfectly willing to discuss the law in the abstract with people who are interested, but I certainly don't pretend to be giving out practical legal advice, and it's entirely possible I'm wrong. If my neck was on the line, I'd want a more authoritative, not to mention responsible, source.

So what does Corpus Juris Secundum (CJS), Volume 7, Section 4, Attorney & client say? (encyclopedia of contemporary statements of American law as derived from reported cases and legislation.)

• The attorney's first duty is to the courts and the public, not to the client, and wherever the duties to his client conflict with those he owes as an officer of the court [color=red]in the administration of justice[/red], the former must yield to the latter.

In other words, the attorney isn't allowed to cheat or lie to the court to get a client off. But, frankly, in most cases you're going to get a better result with a competent attorney who isn't cheating or lying than you are with yourself, cheating, lying, and not knowing very much about the law.

[weishaupt1776]

Originally Posted by chapka

But, frankly, in most cases you're going to get a better result with a competent attorney who isn't cheating or lying than you are with yourself, cheating, lying, and not knowing very much about the law.

Did you know that some attorneys have been threatened w/disbarrment if they would have filed documents which would set law precedents in really protecting people and/or exposing fraud?

So "the administration of justice" phrase is pretty elastic, eh?

I still want to rip your lungs out

[chapka]

Originally Posted by weishaupt1776

Did you know that some attorneys have been threatened w/disbarrment if they would have filed documents which would set law precedents in really protecting people and/or exposing fraud?

This doesn't make sense. Attorneys don't "set law precedents" by filing papers. Yes, lawyers can be disciplined for making frivolous arguments, but by definition a frivolous argument isn't going to set a precedent, because the judge isn't going to rely on that argument in making a decision.

I still want to rip your lungs out

I really wish you wouldn't. In addition to probably hurting a lot, I really don't see what it'd accomplish. If someone disagrees with you, and they're right, killing them doesn't make you any less wrong or them any less right. I'd think at this board, of all places, people would understand that.

[D.Dog]

Lets look at this real easy like.

Fact: Most Judges are Members of the BAR

Fact: All Attorneys ARE MEMBERS OF THE BAR

So they are members of the same fraternity correct? or group that work in unision to further their agenda of promoting the so called need of an attorney.

Prostituting attorneys, alot of them anyway want to be judges, just ask one.

Fact: Portions of court costs and or penelties goto the judges retirement fund.

How can you even expect a fair hearing knowing the above facts. Which are undeniable.

It is all pretense, they put on a GOOD SHOW.

Lets look at injury attorneys Most will cut a deal and talk you out of a trial it saves time, money and they still get 33% of anything you agree too.

I would make an educated guess that 2 in 50 claims actually go to trial.

So do you still see the need for an attorney?

Quotes from well known people as far back as the 1700's and and even as late as Janet Reno.

Henry David Thoreau:
The lawyer's truth is not Truth, but consistency or a consistent expediency.



Janet Reno:
The good lawyer is the great salesman.


William Shakespeare:
The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.


Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.
-Thomas Jefferson


Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.
-Thomas Jefferson

One skilled in the circumvention of the law.
- Ambrose Bierce

A learned gentleman who rescues your estate from your enemies and keeps it himself.
- Henry Brougham

Those who earn a living by the sweat of their brow-beating.
- James G. Huneker

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

He is no lawyer who cannot take two sides.
- Charles Lamb

Those who use the law as shoemakers use leather; rubbing it, pressing it, and stretching it with their teeth, all to the end of making it fit their purposes.
- Louis XII

Can't arguse with those now can ya?

What say you?

[chapka]

Originally Posted by D.Dog

Lets look at this real easy like.

Fact: Most Judges are Members of the BAR

Fact: All Attorneys ARE MEMBERS OF THE BAR

So they are members of the same fraternity correct? or group that work in unision to further their agenda of promoting the so called need of an attorney.

Not really, no. Lawyers are members of one or more bars, meaning, essentially, that they've fulfilled the requirements to practice their profession; they've passed the bar exam and graduated from law school or served an apprenticeship or similar. This is no different than any other professional licensing scheme. Calling someone "a member of the bar" is shorthand, kind of like calling a priest a member of "the clergy"--it doesn't mean ever member of "the clergy" is part of the same denomination, much less that they're all involved in a worldwide conspiracy.

Is is in the interests of lawyers to make sure you need a lawyer? Of course. But that doesn't mean you don't need one. It's in the interest of doctors to make sure you need doctors, and undertakers to make sure you need undertakers, too, but that doesn't mean that you wouldn't get sick and die without them.

Prostituting attorneys, alot of them anyway want to be judges, just ask one.

Fact: Portions of court costs and or penelties goto the judges retirement fund.

How can you even expect a fair hearing knowing the above facts. Which are undeniable.

Because being a judge or prosecutor are sought-after jobs, despite paying much less than the equivalent private-sector jobs. Becoming a judge simply isn't about getting a "cut" of the fees. In fact, second- or third-year associates, right out of law school, at many private law firms make more money than any federal judge (and significanltly more than most state judges). A partner at a halfway decent New York City law firm will easily make substantially more than the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court. (The Chief Justice makes about $200,000 a year. A few years ago, profits per partner at Wachtell Lipton were over $4 million.)

So obviously they're not in it for the money, or they would have stayed in private practice, where many of them started. The idea that they're so desperate for a cut of your $500 frivolous filing penalty that they'll rule against you out of greed is ridiculous, not to mention insulting.

Lets look at injury attorneys Most will cut a deal and talk you out of a trial it saves time, money and they still get 33% of anything you agree too.

So do you still see the need for an attorney?

Only if you want to save time and money, obviously. Fact: an attorney can't make a deal without your approval. If you think your chances are better at trial, you can still go to trial. Or you can take the bird in the hand that your lawyer got for you. How are you harmed in this situation?

Besides, whether the case settles or goes to trial usually isn't as important to the person concerned as whether he or she has to go to jail or not. It's all well and good to say that lawyers settle too many cases. But my question is: do pro se criminal defendants go to jail more often or less often than represented defendants? Sometimes a settlement will keep someone out of jail who would probably have lost at trial. Do pro se plaintiffs win their suits more often or less often than represented plaintiffs? Show me those statistics, and I'll tell you whether or not having a lawyer is worthwhile.

What say you?

I say we seem to be getting off topic. My original post in this thread pointed out some of the glaring errors in elementary points of law that had already been thrown around in this thread. If you were to go into court and rely on any of those arguments--"Your honor, this crime is a tort" or "Your honor, a crime requires a breach of a duty"--you'll greatly increase your chances of going to jail, because the lawyer on the other side will be able to blow holes in that in a few seconds flat. That's one very good reason you need a lawyer, to tell you which legal arguments are going to help you and which are going to hurt you.

[weishaupt1776]

Originally Posted by chapka

This doesn't make sense. Attorneys don't "set law precedents" by filing papers. Yes, lawyers can be disciplined for making frivolous arguments, but by definition a frivolous argument isn't going to set a precedent, because the judge isn't going to rely on that argument in making a decision.

Okay, so you are inferring that attorneys ONLY JUST get threatened w/disbarment for frivolity, BUT IT IS ONLY A REMOTE POSSIBILITY should the attorney file documents which Expose the fraud w/in the establishment AT LAW & IN FACT which would invit disbarment.

The "administration of justice" phrase is elastic. Robert Locke (atty in Chicago) is on the forefront of exposing the fraud w/in the B.A.R right now.

This private organization has infiltrated all 3 lvls of gov't thus blurring the Sep of Pwrs.

Let's decode the following CJS cite.

Here's the original:

• The attorney's first duty is to the courts and the public, not to the client, and wherever the duties to his client conflict with those he owes as an officer of the court [color=red]in the administration of justice[/red], the former must yield to the latter.

Decoded version

• The attorney's first duty is to the B.A.R(private org) and the public(huh?), not to the client, and wherever the duties to his client conflict with those he owes as anOTHER B.A.R CLUB MEMBER [color=red]in the administration of JUST-US(B.A.R.- BANKERS)[/red], the former must yield to the latter.

You make me sick. You are teaching your kids and/or have taught them to be goosestepping bootlickers.

SHAME ON YOU

[Judge Roy Bean]

Originally Posted by chapka

Wouldn't be surprised if many of them didn't. I know that in many administrative proceedings, parties with representation have a much higher success rate than unrepresented parties. (Ask your local Legal Aid office about this if you're interested). I don't know what the eqivalent statistics are for criminal cases, but I'd be very interested to know. Anyone have those statistics for pro se versus represented criminal defendants?

My recollection from a sentencing study some time ago is it was less than 3% in Federal jurisdictions - mainly because of the public defender program, but of those the court allowed to proceed pro se, nearly half were JD's.

Chapka - don't mind weishaupt1776 - he and some of the others here are bitter about the fact that the courts don't see things their way, ergo, the judges must be corrupt because they can't possibly lose if the system weren't. Toss in some conspiracy-theory, season with ignorance, add a dash of paranoia, bake in the "woe is me" oven and pretty soon somebody else is to blame. Fortunately, this affects a tiny fraction of the population.

I have also attempted to explain on this forum that the law has become highly specialized and the legal profession has followed the same trend as others in focusing one's attention on a particular area of the law to work in. Hence, a do-it-yourself legal approach is the equivalent of a do-it-yourself vasectomy; finding a living patient is pretty much impossible except for the ever-popular anecdotal stories of alleged success.

Unfortunately for people trying to deal with their own real legal problems, the nature of the discussion here ends up in court and judge bashing when the fringe-element theories don't work, and leads people with serious legal problems further out into the ocean.

[weishaupt1776]

Originally Posted by Judge Roy Bean

Chapka - don't mind weishaupt1776 - he and some of the others here are bitter about the fact that the courts don't see things their way, ergo, the judges must be corrupt because they can't possibly lose if the system weren't. Toss in some conspiracy-theory, season with ignorance, add a dash of paranoia, bake in the "woe is me" oven and pretty soon somebody else is to blame. Fortunately, this affects a tiny fraction of the population.

I'd love to see JRB w/ his kids at play time.

• "Alright kids, this is how to cast aspersions and taint the record w/no real substance at law or fact finding. WEEEEEEEEEEEEEE . . . .