* moderator mode : on *

In the political thread it's best to just keep it off.

---

me@rescam.org

Political Correctness..........

It's nothin' new, neither is where it came from, or who has used it.....

[sarcasm]Good ol' Political Correctness[/sarcasm]

---

If we find 'em, they'd better be friendly...

* moderator mode : off *

I'm sorry, but I am inescapably reminded of a laywer, a former friend, who told me that when he took his "laywer hat" off his client was a murdering piece of slime that he knew had done the deed. Apparently, when he put his "laywer hat" on he was immediately bereft of honesty, morality and most of his humanity.

* moderator mode : off *

I'm sorry, but I am inescapably reminded of a laywer, a former friend, who told me that when he took his "laywer hat" off his client was a murdering piece of slime that he knew had done the deed. Apparently, when he put his "laywer hat" on he was immediately bereft of honesty, morality and most of his humanity.

LOL!

---

me@rescam.org

* moderator mode : off *

I'm sorry, but I am inescapably reminded of a laywer, a former friend, who told me that when he took his "laywer hat" off his client was a murdering piece of slime that he knew had done the deed. Apparently, when he put his "laywer hat" on he was immediately bereft of honesty, morality and most of his humanity.

LMAO!!!

Well...I am not bereft of any of those things when I do that. I just know that my honesty could actually get me in trouble at times...lol

I just do that to note when I am not speaking form the position of moderator, but simply speaking as a poster on the forums. :-)

* moderator mode : off *

I'm sorry, but I am inescapably reminded of a laywer, a former friend, who told me that when he took his "laywer hat" off his client was a murdering piece of slime that he knew had done the deed. Apparently, when he put his "laywer hat" on he was immediately bereft of honesty, morality and most of his humanity.

Although I think must lawyers are socially two steps below crack whores on the social ladder, most people misunderstand the function of a criminal attorney. He/She is only acting as the spokesperson for the defendant and a legal guide. It is there sworn duty and their job. Although some defendants alleged crimes can be monstrous, who is to say who will be represented, or deserves to be represented in court. Also keep in mind that there are people accused of egregess and horrible crimes, which in the end, are proved to be innocent. The real sharks are the tort and probate attorneys (but not inclusive).

---

Account frozen...

* moderator mode : off *

I'm sorry, but I am inescapably reminded of a laywer, a former friend, who told me that when he took his "laywer hat" off his client was a murdering piece of slime that he knew had done the deed. Apparently, when he put his "laywer hat" on he was immediately bereft of honesty, morality and most of his humanity.

Although I think must lawyers are socially two steps below crack whores on the social ladder, most people misunderstand the function of a criminal attorney. He/She is only acting as the spokesperson for the defendant and a legal guide. It is there sworn duty and their job. Although some defendants alleged crimes can be monstrous, who is to say who will be represented, or deserves to be represented in court. Also keep in mind that there are people accused of egregess and horrible crimes, which in the end, are proved to be innocent. The real sharks are the tort and probate attorneys (but not inclusive).

Sorry Dogbytes, but the lawyer I am talking about knew for a fact that his defendant was guilty of murder and didn't turn a hair at securing a murderer's freedom. This is what precipitated our falling out. The man wasn't just accused and maybe didn't do it this time, he actually told his lawyer that he murdered someone!

* moderator mode : off *

I'm sorry, but I am inescapably reminded of a laywer, a former friend, who told me that when he took his "laywer hat" off his client was a murdering piece of slime that he knew had done the deed. Apparently, when he put his "laywer hat" on he was immediately bereft of honesty, morality and most of his humanity.

Although I think must lawyers are socially two steps below crack whores on the social ladder, most people misunderstand the function of a criminal attorney. He/She is only acting as the spokesperson for the defendant and a legal guide. It is there sworn duty and their job. Although some defendants alleged crimes can be monstrous, who is to say who will be represented, or deserves to be represented in court. Also keep in mind that there are people accused of egregess and horrible crimes, which in the end, are proved to be innocent. The real sharks are the tort and probate attorneys (but not inclusive).

Sorry Dogbytes, but the lawyer I am talking about knew for a fact that his defendant was guilty of murder and didn't turn a hair at securing a murderer's freedom. This is what precipitated our falling out. The man wasn't just accused and maybe didn't do it this time, he actually told his lawyer that he murdered someone!

My point as well was that even someone who admits to a crime has the right to representation, nothing more, nothing less. It is a constitutional right as ajudicated by the supreme court...then hang the bastard out to dry, preferably at the end of a rope.

---

Account frozen...

Sorry Dogbytes, but the lawyer I am talking about knew for a fact that his defendant was guilty of murder and didn't turn a hair at securing a murderer's freedom. This is what precipitated our falling out. The man wasn't just accused and maybe didn't do it this time, he actually told his lawyer that he murdered someone!

Turn the lawyer in.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Sorry Dogbytes, but the lawyer I am talking about knew for a fact that his defendant was guilty of murder and didn't turn a hair at securing a murderer's freedom. This is what precipitated our falling out. The man wasn't just accused and maybe didn't do it this time, he actually told his lawyer that he murdered someone!

Turn the lawyer in.

For what? Socially reprehensable yes, illegal...?

Is there a real lawyer in the house...Tom Koenig are you listening?

---

Account frozen...

Is there a real lawyer in the house...Tom Koenig are you listening?

Yeah, I come in here every once in a while (I am the originator of this thread, after all).

As I understand the complaint here, the lawyer had an admission from his client that he committed murder, and the lawyer did nothing to defend his client after that admission. If there was no viable course of action that the lawyer could take within the bounds of ethics (lawyers cannot perpetrate a fraud on the court, for example), then the lawyer did nothing wrong in just sitting by his client during the proceedings to make sure that the trial was conducted properly. So, even though it looked like the lawyer was doing nothing, he was still there to supply his client with the protection afforded all criminal defendants by the Constitution.

If, after informing his client that in his professional opinion the client had no viable defenses, the client should then have been given the option to allow the attorney to withdraw and a court would determine if withdrawal of the attorney would be appropriate. All of this is a long way of saying that the mere fact that an attorney doesn't appear to be doing anything does not necessarily mean the attorney is doing anything wrong.

Is there a real lawyer in the house...Tom Koenig are you listening?

Yeah, I come in here every once in a while (I am the originator of this thread, after all).

As I understand the complaint here, the lawyer had an admission from his client that he committed murder, and the lawyer did nothing to defend his client after that admission. If there was no viable course of action that the lawyer could take within the bounds of ethics (lawyers cannot perpetrate a fraud on the court, for example), then the lawyer did nothing wrong in just sitting by his client during the proceedings to make sure that the trial was conducted properly. So, even though it looked like the lawyer was doing nothing, he was still there to supply his client with the protection afforded all criminal defendants by the Constitution.

If, after informing his client that in his professional opinion the client had no viable defenses, the client should then have been given the option to allow the attorney to withdraw and a court would determine if withdrawal of the attorney would be appropriate. All of this is a long way of saying that the mere fact that an attorney doesn't appear to be doing anything does not necessarily mean the attorney is doing anything wrong.

Tom, the lawyer had an admission from his client that he committed premeditated murder, and the lawyer still did everything in his power to get his client off. All good and legal, and I understand that he violated the attorney-client relationship to tell me what he did. My beef with him is that, after hearing an admission of guilt from his client he still worked to get him off the hook.

Most lawyers, I believe, would not have done that. I think that most lawyers would have done as you suggested. Hence our falling out.

As I understand the complaint here, the lawyer had an admission from his client that he committed murder, and the lawyer did nothing to defend his client after that admission. If there was no viable course of action that the lawyer could take within the bounds of ethics (lawyers cannot perpetrate a fraud on the court, for example), then the lawyer did nothing wrong in just sitting by his client during the proceedings to make sure that the trial was conducted properly. So, even though it looked like the lawyer was doing nothing, he was still there to supply his client with the protection afforded all criminal defendants by the Constitution.

If, after informing his client that in his professional opinion the client had no viable defenses, the client should then have been given the option to allow the attorney to withdraw and a court would determine if withdrawal of the attorney would be appropriate. All of this is a long way of saying that the mere fact that an attorney doesn't appear to be doing anything does not necessarily mean the attorney is doing anything wrong.

I got the impression that "didn't turn a hair at securing a murderer's freedom," meant that the attorney DID perpetrate a fraud on the court.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

I got the impression that "didn't turn a hair at securing a murderer's freedom," meant that the attorney DID perpetrate a fraud on the court.

Rush, it wasn't fraud. He found some glaringly minute point of law and got his client off on a technicality before the issue of guilt was ever addressed.
The statement that finally set me off was, "If a technicality gets your client off, it's the same as if he was innocent." As I said, legal in today's system, just not moral. And I swear to you, the man did not understand why I would be upset that a cold blooded murderer was walking free.

Tom, the lawyer had an admission from his client that he committed premeditated murder, and the lawyer still did everything in his power to get his client off. All good and legal, and I understand that he violated the attorney-client relationship to tell me what he did. My beef with him is that, after hearing an admission of guilt from his client he still worked to get him off the hook.

Most lawyers, I believe, would not have done that. I think that most lawyers would have done as you suggested. Hence our falling out.

Actually, lawyers are required to do everything in their power to get their client off even if they know their client is guilty. If they cannot do that in any given case, they must, on their own, ask the court to allow them to withdraw. I thought I understood from your earlier posts that the lawyer didn't do anything to help his client, now I understand that was not your complaint.

I got the impression that "didn't turn a hair at securing a murderer's freedom," meant that the attorney DID perpetrate a fraud on the court.

Rush, it wasn't fraud. He found some glaringly minute point of law and got his client off on a technicality before the issue of guilt was ever addressed.
The statement that finally set me off was, "If a technicality gets your client off, it's the same as if he was innocent." As I said, legal in today's system, just not moral. And I swear to you, the man did not understand why I would be upset that a cold blooded murderer was walking free.

MOD HAT OFF:

Look at it another way;

If I get paid to dig ditches, the ditches will be precise and to spec, as it is my job.

If I get paid to defend criminals, I will defend the criminal. It's my job.



EDIT: And if I didn't want to do my job and earn my money like I am supposed to, I would not dig ditches, or defend criminals.

---

Is there a real lawyer in the house...Tom Koenig are you listening?

Yeah, I come in here every once in a while (I am the originator of this thread, after all).

As I understand the complaint here, the lawyer had an admission from his client that he committed murder, and the lawyer did nothing to defend his client after that admission. If there was no viable course of action that the lawyer could take within the bounds of ethics (lawyers cannot perpetrate a fraud on the court, for example), then the lawyer did nothing wrong in just sitting by his client during the proceedings to make sure that the trial was conducted properly. So, even though it looked like the lawyer was doing nothing, he was still there to supply his client with the protection afforded all criminal defendants by the Constitution.

If, after informing his client that in his professional opinion the client had no viable defenses, the client should then have been given the option to allow the attorney to withdraw and a court would determine if withdrawal of the attorney would be appropriate. All of this is a long way of saying that the mere fact that an attorney doesn't appear to be doing anything does not necessarily mean the attorney is doing anything wrong.

I have asked some high level public defenders what they would do if their client admitted to them he was guilty. They said they would still be required to defend him but would be limited in what they could do. Basically they would try to shoot holes in the prosecutions case and try to establish reasonable doubt if possible; it's still the prosecutions job to prove the defendant guilty.

---

me@rescam.org

---

Red Bull Air Racing

Gas price by zip at Seti

200th POST!

---

me@rescam.org