Is It Legal to Print Fake Pretend Play Money if We Change a Lot of Features

My question involves criminal law for the state of: Florida

I have created my own board game which involves pretend money. I have found templates online which look like exact US money. I have photoshopped them to

1. Removed the word "Federal"
2. Removed the Treasury's statement and signature
3. Added the words "NOT A LEGAL TENDER"
4. And most importantly, removed the photo of the president or the forefather and replaced it with a photo of my family member


Also, I am only printing black-n-white and only one sided.

Is it legal or I need to do more? What are some of the things I need to be wary of ?

Thanks

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/loc...236253158.html

Quote:

---

Is it legal or I need to do more?

---

Probably something between what you are doing and Monopoly money.

https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffhp&q=mon...ages&ia=images

There's a lot of free printable play money online. See if any of that works for you.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=play+money...ages&ia=images

At the very least I suggest you make the bills smaller than regular size bill's so there's no mistaking it for regular money.

How about you post photos of both sides.

Quote:

---

What are some of the things I need to be wary of ?

---

Just one thing - Murphy's Law

Whatever can go wrong, will go wrong.

Quote:

---

Quoting fahadash

---

My question involves criminal law for the state of: Florida
Is it legal or I need to do more? What are some of the things I need to be wary of ?

Thanks

---

I also suggest you make it less than 75% of the size of actual currency. Printing it only on one side and B&W only as you plan to do are also very useful. For details see the currency image use page provided by the U.S. government agencies that enforce the laws related to currency — Bureau of Printing and Engraving, the Secret Service, and the Federal Reserve.

Quote:

---

Quoting Taxing Matters

---

I also suggest you make it less than 75% of the size of actual currency. Printing it only on one side and B&W only as you plan to do are also very useful. For details see the currency image use page provided by the U.S. government agencies that enforce the laws related to currency — Bureau of Printing and Engraving, the Secret Service, and the Federal Reserve.

---

I doubt there is anything to be concerned with seeing how Hollywood prints 'Monopoly money' for their personal use...and they even show the world that they do it.

Quote:

---

Quoting Harold99

---

I doubt there is anything to be concerned with seeing how Hollywood prints 'Monopoly money' for their personal use...and they even show the world that they do it.

---

If one follows the requirements set out in the link I provided then it isn't a problem. Major film and TV producers have lawyers to advise them on this kind of stuff and they ensure that those rules are followed. It's not hard to do, and following those rules avoids any potential for trouble.

Quote:

---

Quoting Harold99

---

I doubt there is anything to be concerned with seeing how Hollywood prints 'Monopoly money' for their personal use...and they even show the world that they do it.

---

You can also assume it is REAL, what is seen that is, and the rest, hidden, is phony.

Crook displays a suitcase with 2 million dollars in it. What is seen on top is real hundreds, legal, right?

Under, green paper only. OR what's illegal about using 10 grand in real money for audience effect?

Note, that however UNLIKE real money you make it, if you try to spend it, you can be convicted. We get a story of someone trying to pass million dollar bills every few years.

Quote:

---

Quoting Taxing Matters

---

If one follows the requirements set out in the link I provided then it isn't a problem. Major film and TV producers have lawyers to advise them on this kind of stuff and they ensure that those rules are followed. It's not hard to do, and following those rules avoids any potential for trouble.

---

Anything can be correct in theory but I doubt you have experience or proof of any of the above.

I don't mean to pick on you because you are a lawyer but bringing up possible scenarios as an argument is what lawyers do for a living. They throw out what-if's and hypotheticals with nothing to back it up. They quote a written law as though it will convict or vindicate a person when their assertion is all in theory...knowing the person they are quoting it to doesn't know anything about the conviction, application or acquittal rate either.

The basic requirement to do this is that the person you are scaring has to be naive. Kinda like trying to tell someone not to go 5mph over the speed limit. Though it is illegal to do, nobody, like a lawyer, would take out the law books and try to warn someone of the risks of going 5mph over the limit because the average person knows that law is not applied that way. It's much easier to sell an argument to a naive client or jury.

Quote:

---

Quoting Harold99

---

Anything can be correct in theory but I doubt you have experience or proof of any of the above.

I don't mean to pick on you because you are a lawyer but bringing up possible scenarios as an argument is what lawyers do for a living. They throw out what-if's and hypotheticals with nothing to back it up. They quote a written law as though it will convict or vindicate a person when their assertion is all in theory...knowing the person they are quoting it to doesn't know anything about the conviction, application or acquittal rate either.

---

The law is what it is. The job of the lawyer when advising you is to tell you what that law is. What you do with that information is up to you. If you violate the law, there is always the chance that you'll get caught and prosecuted for it. Of course not everyone is caught nor is everyone who is caught ultimately prosecuted. A lot of factors go into both. People make decisions about what to do based on what they know (or think they know) about those things as well as weighing the risk vs. reward.

Now, as it happens, I know several people involved with producing movies. They tend to be rather conservative in their approach to legal matters. They don't want to risk legal troubles for them or their company, especially when (1) the consequences of violating the law can be severe and (2) it's easy and cheap to follow the law and still get the results you want. So when it comes to things like portraying cash in movies, they simply follow what the rules are for that to avoid the possible severe consequence, even if it's not all that likely, that they'd be prosecuted and convicted of a federal FELONY offense. The rules are easy to meet, so it's a pretty straightforward decision to make.

Quote:

---

Quoting Taxing Matters

---

The law is what it is. The job of the lawyer when advising you is to tell you what that law is. What you do with that information is up to you. If you violate the law, there is always the chance that you'll get caught and prosecuted for it. Of course not everyone is caught nor is everyone who is caught ultimately prosecuted. A lot of factors go into both. People make decisions about what to do based on what they know (or think they know) about those things as well as weighing the risk vs. reward.

Now, as it happens, I know several people involved with producing movies. They tend to be rather conservative in their approach to legal matters. They don't want to risk legal troubles for them or their company, especially when (1) the consequences of violating the law can be severe and (2) it's easy and cheap to follow the law and still get the results you want. So when it comes to things like portraying cash in movies, they simply follow what the rules are for that to avoid the possible severe consequence, even if it's not all that likely, that they'd be prosecuted and convicted of a federal FELONY offense. The rules are easy to meet, so it's a pretty straightforward decision to make.

---

That is where we differ. The law is not what it is. The law is how it is applied and to whom it applies to.

If a jury does not want to follow the law, they do not have to. If a lawyer can convict a person who did not break the law, he has every right to. If he can get a person off who obviously broke the law, he has every right to. So, the law is not the law. Bs'ing about the law and manipulating people about the law is the law of the land.

As I said, quoting laws is for selling something to the naive. Example: Try warning someone about going 5mph over the limit. They will laugh in the face of your quoted law, that you say "is what it is," because they are not naive.

Quote:

---

Quoting Harold99

---

That is where we differ. The law is not what it is.

---

You are conflating two different things. The law is what it is. It defines what is legal and what is not. What happens at trial is not just about law. The points you raise touch on the other factors that are involved. What the evidence is, the skill of the lawyers presenting that evidence, and the attitude of the jurors hearing that evidence all matter too. But those things are not the law. They impact the final outcome of the trial, but should not be conflated with what the law is.

Quote:

---

Quoting Taxing Matters

---

You are conflating two different things. The law is what it is. It defines what is legal and what is not. What happens at trial is not just about law. The points you raise touch on the other factors that are involved. What the evidence is, the skill of the lawyers presenting that evidence, and the attitude of the jurors hearing that evidence all matter too. But those things are not the law. They impact the final outcome of the trial, but should not be conflated with what the law is.

---

It is not entirely true because the term "the law" infers what we will get in trouble for if we violate it. We are not concerned about laws that we can break and we will not get punished for, like, going 5 miles over the speed limit. So, going five over is a law that nobody cares about. So, that law is not "what it is"...as you term it.

What happens at trial should also be about breaking laws that should be applied. But it isn't. It's about manipulating a naive jury to overlook, excuse, or totally disregard laws. It is the undoing of laws and making them not "what they are." So, many laws are not worth the paper they are written on after a lawyer does his dance in front of the jury.

Quote:

---

Quoting Harold99

---

It is not entirely true because the term "the law" infers what we will get in trouble for if we violate it. We are not concerned about laws that we can break and we will not get punished for, like, going 5 miles over the speed limit. So, going five over is a law that nobody cares about. So, that law is not "what it is"...as you term it.

---

Then you define the phrase differently than I do.

Quote:

---

Quoting Harold99

---

It's about manipulating a naive jury to overlook, excuse, or totally disregard laws. It is the undoing of laws and making them not "what they are." So, many laws are not worth the paper they are written on after a lawyer does his dance in front of the jury.

---

My impression of your posts here and elsewhere on this forum is that you place too much importance on the lawyer's powers of persuasion and too little on the actual evidence in the case and the law. Sure, the lawyer's ability to persuade the jury has an impact and can be significant, but most juries also do take account of the evidence they heard and the judge's instructions on the law. A good speech at the closing argument won't be enough in most cases overcome crappy evidence or law that disfavors the client's position. Most jurors can tell when a lawyer is totally BSing them in the closing argument, though there are exceptions where juries are totally clueless. A lawyer needs to have the sense to tailor his/her argument to the particular jury he/she is trying to win over.

Quote:

---

Quoting Taxing Matters

---

My impression of your posts here and elsewhere on this forum is that you place too much importance on the lawyer's powers of persuasion and too little on the actual evidence in the case and the law. Sure, the lawyer's ability to persuade the jury has an impact and can be significant, but most juries also do take account of the evidence they heard and the judge's instructions on the law. A good speech at the closing argument won't be enough in most cases overcome crappy evidence or law that disfavors the client's position. Most jurors can tell when a lawyer is totally BSing them in the closing argument, though there are exceptions where juries are totally clueless. A lawyer needs to have the sense to tailor his/her argument to the particular jury he/she is trying to win over.

---

First off, you do not know how most juries arrive at their decision, what evidence they use or what bias they have going in. Secondly, it is not only the crafty, deceitful, misleading skills of a real trial lawyer that persuades a jury. The injustice of our court system also comes from the lack of skills of the opposing lawyer who thinks he is a real 'trial lawyer' because he has appeared in a courtroom on occasion.

In our medical industry only accomplished doctors take on certain surgeries. In our justice system any lawyer can go against another lawyer for nearly any offense or defense. All the lawyer has to do is convince his client he/she is in good hands. If they were doctors and they lost a patient during a simple surgery, they would not perform that surgery again. But lawyers can lose a winnable case and all they have do is make up an excuse to their naive client and walk away to do it again.

Just as we can research the background and expertise of a doctor before handing our life over to them, we should be able to research the background and win-rate of lawyers too. But we can't. Why is that? Is it the work of lobbyists to protect this often sleazy profession?

Quote:

---

Quoting Harold99

---

It is not entirely true because the term "the law" infers what we will get in trouble for if we violate it. We are not concerned about laws that we can break and we will not get punished for, like, going 5 miles over the speed limit. So, going five over is a law that nobody cares about. So, that law is not "what it is"...as you term it.

---

In one jurisdiction near where I live it was well known to be aggressive on speeding and I have been pulled over there multiple times for going 4 over but was given a warning each time. While not cited, you could argue just being delayed by being pulled over was punishment.

Quote:

---

Quoting joef

---

In one jurisdiction near where I live it was well known to be aggressive on speeding and I have been pulled over there multiple times for going 4 over but was given a warning each time. While not cited, you could argue just being delayed by being pulled over was punishment.

---

Yes, 'sting operations' are like getting mugged...they are aberrations that we all have to live with. But, they are not the normal or sufficient evidence that we should change our living habits because of them.

Quote:

---

Quoting Harold99

---

Yes, 'sting operations' are like getting mugged...they are aberrations that we all have to live with. But, they are not the normal or sufficient evidence that we should change our living habits because of them.

---

Is English even your first language? How is being pulled over and given a warning a "sting" operation? The fact is that if you drive 1 mile over the posted speed limit you are breaking the law. Just because you are cited for it doesn't mean that it isn't illegal.

Quote:

---

Quoting Harold99

---

First off, you do not know how most juries arrive at their decision, what evidence they use or what bias they have going in.

---

>

But you do? How, pray tell, do you come by this information?

Quote:

---

Quoting PayrolGuy

---

Is English even your first language? How is being pulled over and given a warning a "sting" operation? The fact is that if you drive 1 mile over the posted speed limit you are breaking the law. Just because you are cited for it doesn't mean that it isn't illegal.

---

Is common sense and life experience foreign to you?

My point is who cares if something is illegal, like spitting in a dirt field, if there is little chance of getting cited for it.

People that actually go outside their house know the laws that are enforced and those that are not. It's called common sense and situational awareness. Most of life cannot be learned on Google, as you are trying to do here.

Quote:

---

Quoting cbg

---

>

But you do? How, pray tell, do you come by this information?

---

You should be asking TM how he knows this when he said "most juries also do take account of the evidence they heard and the judge's instructions on the law."

So, since it was left out of TM's post, we are to assume that most juries can objectively analyze evidence, vacate their bias and not be influenced by a trial lawyer's theatrical dance he does in front of them?

Let's see if you ask TM or cover for him?

Quote:

---

Quoting Harold99

---

That is where we differ. The law is not what it is. The law is how it is applied and to whom it applies to.

If a jury does not want to follow the law, they do not have to.

---

Yes they do, if they do not, a judge can and will throw out their verdict.

Quote:

---

If a lawyer can convict a person who did not break the law, he has every right to. If he can get a person off who obviously broke the law, he has every right to.

---

Lawyers do not convict anyone. Judges and juries convict people. Yes, if an attorney is able to make a convincing enough argument to a judge or jury that someone should or should not be convicted then someone who is innocent might go to jail, and someone who is guilty might get off. However, it is not blatant, as you seem to imagine.

Quote:

---

So, the law is not the law. Bs'ing about the law and manipulating people about the law is the law of the land.

---

The law IS the law. It is not all BS and manipulation although yes, there can be some manipulation. You are watching too much TV.

Quote:

---

As I said, quoting laws is for selling something to the naive. Example: Try warning someone about going 5mph over the limit. They will laugh in the face of your quoted law, that you say "is what it is," because they are not naive.

---

Yes, its generally safe to go no more than 5 miles over the speed limit. Why? Because there are not enough policemen in the world to catch every driver who drives 5 miles or less over the speed limit. That doesn't mean that someone will NEVER get pulled over for that. It just means it's unlikely.

Quote:

---

Quoting Harold99

---

Is common sense and life experience foreign to you?

My point is who cares if something is illegal, like spitting in a dirt field, if there is little chance of getting cited for it.

People that actually go outside their house know the laws that are enforced and those that are not. It's called common sense and situational awareness. Most of life cannot be learned on Google, as you are trying to do here.



You should be asking TM how he knows this when he said "most juries also do take account of the evidence they heard and the judge's instructions on the law."

So, since it was left out of TM's post, we are to assume that most juries can objectively analyze evidence, vacate their bias and not be influenced by a trial lawyer's theatrical dance he does in front of them?

Let's see if you ask TM or cover for him?

---

This is so far out in the weeds that even Harold's biases and preconceived notions can't find him.

Harold, take a fistful of Valium and chill out.

Quote:

---

Quoting Harold99

---

Is common sense and life experience foreign to you?

My point is who cares if something is illegal, like spitting in a dirt field, if there is little chance of getting cited for it.

People that actually go outside their house know the laws that are enforced and those that are not. It's called common sense and situational awareness. Most of life cannot be learned on Google, as you are trying to do here.

---

Your problem, assuming for a second you aren't simply a troll, is that you seem to think that your personal experiences are the rule for everyone. They aren't. Do I know that I can drive 9 miles over the posted limit on the Interstate and likely at least 5 MPH over in most other places, sure I do. But I'm not about to advise someone here to do it because it would be illegal for them to do so.

Quote:

---

Quoting llworking

---

Yes they do, if they do not, a judge can and will throw out their verdict.

Lawyers do not convict anyone. Judges and juries convict people. Yes, if an attorney is able to make a convincing enough argument to a judge or jury that someone should or should not be convicted then someone who is innocent might go to jail, and someone who is guilty might get off. However, it is not blatant, as you seem to imagine.

The law IS the law. It is not all BS and manipulation although yes, there can be some manipulation. You are watching too much TV.

Yes, its generally safe to go no more than 5 miles over the speed limit. Why? Because there are not enough policemen in the world to catch every driver who drives 5 miles or less over the speed limit. That doesn't mean that someone will NEVER get pulled over for that. It just means it's unlikely.

---

No, I get my information from actually sitting in a courtroom and watching it all play out. After at least $200,000 was spent on legal fees and costs, I can say it is a sham.

You should try losing a few hundred thousand in that courtroom circus and come back to speak so highly of it...if that is what you are doing.

As for judges overturning a verdict...huh! Maybe in an idealistic world.

Quote:

---

Quoting PayrolGuy

---

Your problem, assuming for a second you aren't simply a troll, is that you seem to think that your personal experiences are the rule for everyone. They aren't. Do I know that I can drive 9 miles over the posted limit on the Interstate and likely at least 5 MPH over in most other places, sure I do. But I'm not about to advise someone here to do it because it would be illegal for them to do so.

---

I am surprised that you are aware that you can even drive one mile over the limit.

As for the troll comment, me disagreeing with you and others does not make me a troll. I speak from experience, which trumps any of your Googled, theoretical ideas.

Quote:

---

Quoting Harold99

---

First off, you do not know how most juries arrive at their decision, what evidence they use or what bias they have going in.

---

I know from the trials I have tried (because I ask the jurors afterward how they reached their decision) and participated in as a juror myself that most jurors made a serious effort to get the right result. Sure, the lawyer's persuasion played a role, but the actual evidence and law mattered a lot, too. You seem to put too much emphasis on the lawyer's persuasion and discount the importance of evidence and law to a jury's decision. I suppose it's possible that the jurors in my area are simply smarter and not as easily snowed over by lawyers as the jurors are in your area. But I doubt you'd be easily snowed by a lawyer, would you? And I assume you'd try to reach the proper result, right? Are you saying you are that much smarter and more diligent than the other people in your community? If so, I feel bad for your community.

If you feel that jurors are so easily swayed then perhaps you'd support eliminating juries altogether and have all cases decided by the judge.

Quote:

---

Quoting Harold99

---

In our medical industry only accomplished doctors take on certain surgeries.

---

Those doctors get so accomplished by having done those surgeries a first time someplace. And not all docs are as equally skilled even with experience doing it. From what I see it seems the public tends to think of all docs as all equally highly skilled, apparently you among them. But the reality is that, as with any profession, the range of skills varies. And like any profession, there are a few docs out there that are barely competent and who should be in a different profession. Same is true with lawyers.

But you hate lawyers based, apparently, on the two trials you observed — your friend's criminal trial and your own civil trial. So I don't expect to convince you otherwise even though your very limited experience in this is not reflective of the majority of trials.

And as far as researching the backgrounds of doctors, there is actually not much more available to help the public pick their doctors than there is to pick their lawyers. I've faced a frustrating lack of real information when looking to pick my doctors.

One of the big differences is that with lawyers at trial always one side will lose even when both attorneys are excellent. That's just the nature of trials. That makes a win loss record at trials a less meaningful statistic for a lawyer than would the statistics of what percentage of a surgeon's patients die on the operating table. The two professions are by their very nature, quite different. Surgeries, unlike trials, are not battles between two opposing sides. So trying to compare the two professions, as you seem to like to do, is like comparing apples to broccoli.

Quote:

---

Quoting Harold99

---

No, I get my information from actually sitting in a courtroom and watching it all play out. After at least $200,000 was spent on legal fees and costs, I can say it is a sham.

You should try losing a few hundred thousand in that courtroom circus and come back to speak so highly of it...if that is what you are doing.

As for judges overturning a verdict...huh! Maybe in an idealistic world.

---

Quote:

---

I am surprised that you are aware that you can even drive one mile over the limit.

As for the troll comment, me disagreeing with you and others does not make me a troll. I speak from experience, which trumps any of your Googled, theoretical ideas.

---

So you have been in court 2 or 3 times. That doesn't mean you have even the slightest overview of how the system works 99.999999999% of the time.

You disagreeing with me doesn't make you a troll. You disagreeing with everyone even after you have been shown to be wrong makes you a troll.

Quote:

---

Quoting PayrolGuy

---

So you have been in court 2 or 3 times. That doesn't mean you have even the slightest overview of how the system works 99.999999999% of the time.

You disagreeing with me doesn't make you a troll. You disagreeing with everyone even after you have been shown to be wrong makes you a troll.

---

I have been in court about thirteen times. As a plaintiff four times and as a defendant about nine times. How about you?

Quote:

---

Quoting Harold99

---

I have been in court about thirteen times. As a plaintiff four times and as a defendant about nine times. How about you?

---

3 when I was one of the named parties. Somewhere close to 50 or 60 when I was a reporter.

You really need to stop getting sued.

Quote:

---

Quoting PayrolGuy

---

3 when I was one of the named parties. Somewhere close to 50 or 60 when I was a reporter.

You really need to stop getting sued.

---

I have never been sued.

Quote:

---

Quoting Harold99

---

I have never been sued.

---

How were you a defendant when you were not sued?

Quote:

---

Quoting RJR

---

How were you a defendant when you were not sued?

---

That would suggest he was a defendant in traffic, infraction, or criminal cases. I'm guessing most of those were traffic/infraction hearings with no jury, but of course that's just a guess.

Quote:

---

Quoting Taxing Matters

---

That would suggest he was a defendant in traffic, infraction, or criminal cases. I'm guessing most of those were traffic/infraction hearings with no jury, but of course that's just a guess.

---

If so, his statement, at least to me, is misleading, as it followed a question of being sued!

Quote:

---

Quoting Taxing Matters

---

That would suggest he was a defendant in traffic, infraction, or criminal cases. I'm guessing most of those were traffic/infraction hearings with no jury, but of course that's just a guess.

---

That is correct TM, a defendant can be either civil, traffic or a criminal case. Mine were many traffic infractions that I chose to fight, a few misdemeanor traffics, an exhibition of speed, one reckless driving, three small claims cases, a disorderly conduct/misdemeanor case and then my recent big case. Though most of my small cases were not very traumatic experiences I recall how one sleazebag prosecutor used his slick and sleazy ways to win a case: I was riding my motorcycle on a residential street when a motor-cop got on my tail. I clearly saw him so I held my speed at 30-33mph for three residential blocks. He saw that I was aware of him...that I was not going to speed or flee, so he pulled me over wrote me up for about 40mph.

Example of courtroom sleaze:
Prosecutor: "How fast were you going down xxx street?"
Me: "Between 30-33mph" (wanting to be as honest and accurate as I could because I was being wronged.)
Prosecutor: "So, you do not know EXACTLY how fast you were going?"
Me: "No, because I was going between those speeds."
Prosecutor: "I rest my case." (with a big sh!t eating grin on his face.)

So that was my introduction to being honest in a courtroom...very regretful. If you want to win in court you must lie like the cops do and play games like the prosecutors do.

Oh, to balance the score, I did win one citation by lying my ass off. I learned how to do that from the cops.

As for my experience with a jury TM, how many times must a person witness and experience a rape to know how it feels?

RJR, I did not mean to mislead. I thought everyone here knew the different types of defendants.

Quote:

---

Quoting Harold99

---

As for my experience with a jury TM, how many times must a person witness and experience a rape to know how it feels?

---

Only once. And evidently after your loss at your trial you felt screwed over, whether justified or not, which is understandable since you were apparently very confident in your case. But a woman who is raped who then believes from that experience that all men are rapists would be quite wrong in that belief. It is illogical to assume from that one experience that all men act the same way. Similarly, believing all lawyers are like those you encountered in your trial is also illogical for the same reason. Similarly, when I encountered a contractor who ripped off a relative, would I be justified from dealing with that scumbag that all contractors are crooks? No, I wouldn't. It would be illogical to assume that one person represented all the other contractors out there. Wouldn't you agree?

As for your example of "courtroom sleaze" there was nothing sleazy about it. He asked perfectly valid questions, hoping perhaps you'd admit to speeding. When he could see that he wasn't getting anything good, he stopped his examination. And I'm pretty sure that your little snippet of the trial left out the entire evidence the prosecutor provided to support the claim of speeding, including the officer's testimony relating to how your speed was measured. If you didn't know how to attack that in your case, well, that's part of the reason why you lost.

Just because you lose a case you think you should win doesn't mean the opposing side was unethical.

Quote:

---

Quoting Taxing Matters

---

As for your example of "courtroom sleaze" there was nothing sleazy about it. He asked perfectly valid questions, hoping perhaps you'd admit to speeding. When he could see that he wasn't getting anything good, he stopped his examination.

---

I think the prosecutor got exactly what they wanted, Harold admitting he did not know what his speed actually was.

Quote:

---

Quoting Harold99

---

I have never been sued.

---

Then your experience in courts is less than even I thought.

Quote:

---

Quoting Taxing Matters

---

Only once. And evidently after your loss at your trial you felt screwed over, whether justified or not, which is understandable since you were apparently very confident in your case.

---

TM, you characterize my case using lawyer wording and I believe you do not even know that you do it. I was not merely "confident" in my case. Being confident about a case could mean that I was guilty as sin, I knew that I was guilty as sin, but I had a string of lies that I felt "confident" would work in getting me off. So, I was not "confident" in my case. I knew what happened, I was there, I was being wronged by a lying cop. I thought that being truthful about what happened would be in my favor, yet I was wrong! I was not prepared for the cop to lie on the stand about my speed and for the prosecutor to play a word game on me and win because of it.

You lawyers are taught how to do this to good people, as I experienced in my trial. Example (since I know how to do it now to an honest, truthful person): Question: "What color was the car?" Answer: "It was between turquoise and teal." Question: "So, you do not know EXACTLY what color the car was." Answer (if you are being perfectly truthful): "No." So, this is how good, honest people are destroyed by the lawyer-mouth.

Quote:

---

But a woman who is raped who then believes from that experience that all men are rapists would be quite wrong in that belief.

---

Here you are doing it again. You are making a characterization of what a woman's take-away is from being raped, when you were never raped in your life. You characterize her in a way so you can call even the most innocent, violated victim "wrong." This is inline with my statement of "a good lawyer can make Mother Theresa look like a whore."

She would not think all men are rapists. That is totally illogical. Her lesson would be that even though she vetted her date the best she could, she was still slipped a date rape drug and raped. Just like me thinking that if I go into a courtroom and tell the truth, I will be best off... when the other lawyer got his side to lie their a$$es off.

Quote:

---

It is illogical to assume from that one experience that all men act the same way.

---

Again, she does not think that...as you falsely characterize her in your closing argument.

Quote:

---

Similarly, believing all lawyers are like those you encountered in your trial is also illogical for the same reason.

---

I don't think all lawyers will act that way under all conditions. I think they are able to act that way without any conscience at all. Huge difference and another false characterization of me. See how you discredit someone and you aren't even aware you do it...because it is how you win in a courtroom. ...Making good people look like trash.

Quote:

---

Similarly, when I encountered a contractor who ripped off a relative, would I be justified from dealing with that scumbag that all contractors are crooks? No, I wouldn't. It would be illogical to assume that one person represented all the other contractors out there. Wouldn't you agree?

---

If I came across a group of gang members I would not assume I was about to get mugged. I would be aware that mugging is what they do for a living, and to not trust any of them for a minute.

Quote:

---

As for your example of "courtroom sleaze" there was nothing sleazy about it. He asked perfectly valid questions, hoping perhaps you'd admit to speeding. When he could see that he wasn't getting anything good, he stopped his examination. And I'm pretty sure that your little snippet of the trial left out the entire evidence the prosecutor provided to support the claim of speeding, including the officer's testimony relating to how your speed was measured. If you didn't know how to attack that in your case, well, that's part of the reason why you lost.

---

It was pure sleaze because he saw that I was trying to be as accurate as I could by not stating something ridiculous like "I was going EXACTLY 32mph for three blocks," which is literally impossible to do due to fluctuation in speed. Not even a cruise control can hold a speed exactly at one speed. But, in hindsight, I should have lied and not been caught in his lawyer-mouth game.

Quote:

---

Just because you lose a case you think you should win doesn't mean the opposing side was unethical.

---

There you go again. I saw the cop lie under oath and the prosecutor play his word game with me. They were both unethical, regardless of who won.

Quote:

---

Quoting Harold99

---

I was not merely "confident" in my case. Being confident about a case could mean that I was guilty as sin, I knew that I was guilty as sin, but I had a string of lies that I felt "confident" would work in getting me off.

---

So you knew you were guilty, lied, didn't win and now you are pissed about losing? Do I have that straight?

Quote:

---

Quoting PayrolGuy

---

So you knew you were guilty, lied, didn't win and now you are pissed about losing? Do I have that straight?

---

No. Reread what I wrote. When TM said I was merely "confident" in my case, it infers that I could have been confident in lies to get me off. When that is not the right word to describe my case.

I was not confident that I would win. I thought the truth prevailed in a courtroom and cops would not boldface lie under oath. I learned otherwise...also about how a prosecutor uses word games to win.

If you have been in court settings 50 times, why don't you tell some of the egregious word-games you've heard lawyers use to win?

Quote:

---

Quoting Harold99

---

If you have been in court settings 50 times, why don't you tell some of the egregious word-games you've heard lawyers use to win?

---

I've heard lawyers many times use the English language properly and I've heard them butcher it. I've heard them question those that used the language improperly to clarify what was being said. But I wouldn't classify the proper use of the language as a word game as you do. I think your inability to use the language properly and that inability is to your detriment causes you to call it word games.