Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 21 to 29 of 29
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    7,713

    Default Re: How Valid

    Quote Quoting CONNOR99
    View Post
    We are talking about the attorney down my street, remember? Have you, not your client, ever been done dirty by an attorney? Have you ever seen their filth firsthand. It isn't something a person should ever forget.
    Attorneys have no special powers over "private citizens" as your prior post claims. It's a shame you have apparently had a bad experience with an attorney, or perhaps more than one, but that is hardly the universal experience. What I have seen is that when it comes to litigation, most people like their own attorney but dislike the opposing attorney. That's hardly surprising, though, since the opposing attorney is working as hard as he or she can for his/her client the person on the other side of the dispute with you. You're entitled to your own opinion of lawyers, of course, but your apparent hatred of lawyers as a group colors your ability to see issues involving them objectively.

    Quote Quoting CONNOR99
    View Post
    Again, my explanation is the most probable...unless you have a more probable one?
    Without knowing which state's law applies, IMO it is just as probable if not more that the reason the cops weren't interested is that they just didn't want to take the time to do it. In the abstract there is no way to prove which of the two is more probable. Of course, you favor the conclusion that most appeals to you. But don't assume that makes it the most probable.

    Quote Quoting CONNOR99
    View Post
    After witnessing attorneys do the lawyer-dance for a week I am beginning to see how you employ many of their tactics.
    You only see what you want to see that which confirms your anti-lawyer opinions. I'm not surprised in the least.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Posts
    156

    Default Re: How Valid

    Quote Quoting Taxing Matters
    View Post
    Attorneys have no special powers over "private citizens" as your prior post claims.
    Bear with me. Does a UFC fighter have special powers over you in a back alley? He absolutely does! Does an attorney have special powers over me in a courtroom? Absolutely! If I hire my UFC fighter to fight your guy over a personal injury settlement, would you be OK with the winner take all conclusion? Oh, and my guy might eye gouge, so your guy better be ready to do the same until they get caught by the ref.

    Our system is to hire fighters to go into a ring. Winner take all. Except the UFC is far more professional, ethical, and fair than our justice system. Sad, ins't it?

    It's a shame you have apparently had a bad experience with an attorney, or perhaps more than one, but that is hardly the universal experience. What I have seen is that when it comes to litigation, most people like their own attorney but dislike the opposing attorney. That's hardly surprising, though, since the opposing attorney is working as hard as he or she can for his/her client — the person on the other side of the dispute with you. You're entitled to your own opinion of lawyers, of course, but your apparent hatred of lawyers as a group colors your ability to see issues involving them objectively.
    With all your experience in courtrooms, nothing compares to having a dog in the hunt. Have you ever hired an attorney, had to sit quietly beside him, and as a result lost tens, if not hundreds of thousands due to an unethical fight? I highly doubt it.

    Without knowing which state's law applies, IMO it is just as probable if not more that the reason the cops weren't interested is that they just didn't want to take the time to do it. In the abstract there is no way to prove which of the two is more probable. Of course, you favor the conclusion that most appeals to you. But don't assume that makes it the most probable.
    It would not have taken any more time. IMO, it is how it was described to me many times. A cop must witness an infraction in order to cite it. Especially a fix-it ticket as mine was.

    You only see what you want to see — that which confirms your anti-lawyer opinions. I'm not surprised in the least.
    No. I have an opinion based on my many experiences in a courtroom witnessing how lawyers unethically and ineptly carry on in there. As said, nothing compares to having a dog in the hunt.

    Quote Quoting cdwjava
    View Post
    What the law says and what policy or practice might be are different animals. All because the DA won't file does not mean the police cannot write a report and submit it.
    Right. But it means they will not.

    In fact, if they receive a private person's arrest, they HAVE to act upon it as a matter of law.
    I'd like to see my successfulness of forcing the police to write up the guy down the street for bald tires. They won't because they don't have to "as a matter of law."

    Do they have to write a worthless report? Who care? It is worthless.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Paso Robles, California
    Posts
    511

    Default Re: How Valid

    *****
    I may not always be right, but I am never wrong.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    California
    Posts
    20,523

    Default Re: How Valid

    Quote Quoting CONNOR99
    View Post
    Right. But it means they will not.
    If they receive a private person's arrest, they will have to. They would have to justify why they did NOT accept the arrest as required under the law, or, they will write the report to forward to request charges or to forward along with the citation/arrest. The DA's policy and practice does not supercede the law, and sometimes the police have to act on something that they know won't go anywhere.

    I'd like to see my successfulness of forcing the police to write up the guy down the street for bald tires. They won't because they don't have to "as a matter of law."

    Do they have to write a worthless report? Who care? It is worthless.
    I can't imagine that the DA would prosecute it, But, if you chose to demand a private person's arrest for someone operating their own car with (legally) bald ties, they'd be bound under the law to accept it ... and, write a report forwarding it on.

    Quote Quoting CONNOR99
    View Post
    It would not have taken any more time. IMO, it is how it was described to me many times. A cop must witness an infraction in order to cite it. Especially a fix-it ticket as mine was.
    As I have explained, that is not entirely true. It can be issued pursuant to a private person's arrest per PC 837.
    **********
    Retired Cal Cop Sergeant & Teacher

    Seek justice,
    Love mercy,
    Walk humbly with your God

    -- Courageous, by Casting Crowns ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkM-gDcmJeM

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    7,713

    Default Re: How Valid

    Quote Quoting CONNOR99
    View Post
    Bear with me. Does a UFC fighter have special powers over you in a back alley? He absolutely does! Does an attorney have special powers over me in a courtroom? Absolutely!
    I guess that depends on your definition of things. I don't consider either of those examples of "special powers over" someone. To me a special powers would mean some legal authority given one person over another, as in an appointed guardian or conservator. In both your examples what you have is that one person is more skilled at something than another. You see that in every profession some people are just better at their work than others. What makes litigation different than most other professions, aside from sports, is that you're directly going head to head against someone else. So even in a fight with the two best lawyers, one of them will still be on the losing side of the court's decision. So naturally more people have adversarial experiences with lawyers on the other side of their disputes than they have adversarial experiences with doctors, plumbers, or accountants. So it does not surprise me that more people have negative views of lawyers than they do of people in most other professions/occupations. Most lawyers, at least in the places I've practiced, practice ethically. That does not mean they don't vigorously represent their clients and take advantage of any mistakes or shortcomings in the opposing side. Of course they do that, at least the good ones, and that's what they should do. But it is exactly that which the opposing side does not like.

    Quote Quoting CONNOR99
    View Post
    If I hire my UFC fighter to fight your guy over a personal injury settlement, would you be OK with the winner take all conclusion?
    If I had the right to hire my own UFC fighter then I can be on an even playing field. You can hire a lawyer to represent you, just like the other guy can, so you get on a level playing field. Your complaint, I guess, is that you don't want to pay to hire your own lawyer. I can understand that, but the other guy has to pay his lawyer too, so still a level playing field. Where we need to do better is providing legal representation for the indigent in not just criminal cases, but certain other kinds of cases too where critical things are at stake, like eviction actions where the person ends up homeless if he loses, for example. I'll certainly not be one that says the system is perfect.

    Quote Quoting CONNOR99
    View Post
    Except the UFC is far more professional, ethical, and fair than our justice system.
    That's your opinion, and you are entitled to it. I don't share your view of things. And neither of us is going to change the view of the other.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Posts
    156

    Default Re: How Valid

    Quote Quoting Taxing Matters
    View Post
    I guess that depends on your definition of things. I don't consider either of those examples of "special powers over" someone. To me a special powers would mean some legal authority given one person over another, as in an appointed guardian or conservator. In both your examples what you have is that one person is more skilled at something than another. You see that in every profession — some people are just better at their work than others. What makes litigation different than most other professions, aside from sports, is that you're directly going head to head against someone else. So even in a fight with the two best lawyers, one of them will still be on the losing side of the court's decision. So naturally more people have adversarial experiences with lawyers on the other side of their disputes than they have adversarial experiences with doctors, plumbers, or accountants. So it does not surprise me that more people have negative views of lawyers than they do of people in most other professions/occupations. Most lawyers, at least in the places I've practiced, practice ethically. That does not mean they don't vigorously represent their clients and take advantage of any mistakes or shortcomings in the opposing side. Of course they do that, at least the good ones, and that's what they should do. But it is exactly that which the opposing side does not like.
    Special powers are not limited to legal authority over someone else. It could be physical power, salesmanship power, knowledge power, debate ability power, and then there is courtroom power. Any of those abilities over someone else better make them think twice about prevailing over them. You would not face a UFC fighter without a bodyguard or face the IRS without an accountant or EA. For the same reason I will not do business with an attorney because unlike him, I would have to hire representation to face him in a courtroom where he would not. He could legally threaten me and I would have no defense and be totally vulnerable unless I coughed up $5-10K to oppose him.

    Individuals and companies are BSing people all the time for the sake of their cause and they hire employees to catch them at their game. Lawyers are not the only profession that are used to represent a person or company. Lawyers are also taught two skills: How to legally defend someone and how to discredit someone. The latter is something any comedian could do so I wouldn't orally joist with them either.

    You say most lawyers are ethical, let me ask you an example on ethics: My friend's parents were plaintiffs in a malpractice case. The defense hired a private detective to follow them. They got footage of them shopping at an RV lot. The defense presented that footage and claimed they were looking to spend their award before they even won it...when there could be many reasons to be there. So, is that ethical to you? Throwing sh!t at the fan to see what sticks?

    If I had the right to hire my own UFC fighter then I can be on an even playing field. You can hire a lawyer to represent you, just like the other guy can, so you get on a level playing field. Your complaint, I guess, is that you don't want to pay to hire your own lawyer. I can understand that, but the other guy has to pay his lawyer too, so still a level playing field. Where we need to do better is providing legal representation for the indigent in not just criminal cases, but certain other kinds of cases too where critical things are at stake, like eviction actions where the person ends up homeless if he loses, for example. I'll certainly not be one that says the system is perfect.
    There is no comparison as you suggest. If you hired a UFC fighter to face mine you would be privy to both fighters body weight, skill level, defeats and victories, times in the ring, time as a pro, whether either fighter is a striker or grappler, etc. When you hire an attorney there is very little available on his background, accomplishments, defeats, objective analysis, or special skills. Nobody in their right mind will write negative reviews on an attorney like they will the body shop down the street. What we have mostly is them selling themselves to a naive public.

    Quote Quoting cdwjava
    View Post
    If they receive a private person's arrest, they will have to. They would have to justify why they did NOT accept the arrest as required under the law, or, they will write the report to forward to request charges or to forward along with the citation/arrest. The DA's policy and practice does not supercede the law, and sometimes the police have to act on something that they know won't go anywhere.

    I can't imagine that the DA would prosecute it, But, if you chose to demand a private person's arrest for someone operating their own car with (legally) bald ties, they'd be bound under the law to accept it ... and, write a report forwarding it on.

    As I have explained, that is not entirely true. It can be issued pursuant to a private person's arrest per PC 837.
    Funny, cops spend their entire career concerned with what will LIKELY happen. Yet when they want to intimidate, they suddenly switch to what CAN happen.

    If I was concerned with what can happen, I'd never leave the house. Also, if you are inferring that I can perform a citizen's arrest for bald tires, you've got to be kidding.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    7,713

    Default Re: How Valid

    Quote Quoting CONNOR99
    View Post
    You say most lawyers are ethical, let me ask you an example on ethics: My friend's parents were plaintiffs in a malpractice case. The defense hired a private detective to follow them. They got footage of them shopping at an RV lot. The defense presented that footage and claimed they were looking to spend their award before they even won it...when there could be many reasons to be there. So, is that ethical to you? Throwing sh!t at the fan to see what sticks?
    That wouldn't necessarily violate the rules of professional conduct. I'd have to see it and what claims the plaintiff made to know if there were any issues with it in that regard. But what I do see is an issue of relevance. The plaintiff's attorney should have objected to that from the get go since what the plaintiff's plan to buy or not buy after they win is completely irrelevant to the malpractice case. So if the plaintiff's attorney didn't shut that down that's on him/her. I suspect, though, that what was more likely going on was an effort to use the video to show the plaintiff's were not as injured as they claim. That's a pretty common tactic in personal injury type cases and perfectly valid.

    And as for special powers, as I said before your definition of that term is different from mine. The examples you gave are not what I would call special powers. They are examples of people being good at a particular skill. That can give them an edge over someone who does not have that skill, certainly, but I don't call that a "special power over" someone else.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    24,245

    Default Re: How Valid

    Is it just me, or have we wandered fairly far from the original poster's question?

    It's just me?

    Okay, then.

    Carry on.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Posts
    156

    Default Re: How Valid

    Quote Quoting Taxing Matters
    View Post
    That wouldn't necessarily violate the rules of professional conduct. I'd have to see it and what claims the plaintiff made to know if there were any issues with it in that regard. But what I do see is an issue of relevance. The plaintiff's attorney should have objected to that from the get go since what the plaintiff's plan to buy or not buy after they win is completely irrelevant to the malpractice case. So if the plaintiff's attorney didn't shut that down that's on him/her. I suspect, though, that what was more likely going on was an effort to use the video to show the plaintiff's were not as injured as they claim. That's a pretty common tactic in personal injury type cases and perfectly valid.
    There would be nothing "professional" about that conduct...as if lawyers only engage in "professional conduct." Huh! What is professional about them is their appearance...that's it. They are absolutely no different than a common politician...never seen without the prop of their tailored suit.

    Also, I'm glad you agree that a lawyer just throws as much sh!t at the fan as he can, hoping the other side doesn't object/deflect it all. Seems all too familiar. "Ya, I tried to eye gouge you, it's your fault you didn't blocked it." Ya, that logic makes eye gouging ethical. Doesn't it?

    And as for special powers, as I said before your definition of that term is different from mine. The examples you gave are not what I would call special powers. They are examples of people being good at a particular skill. That can give them an edge over someone who does not have that skill, certainly, but I don't call that a "special power over" someone else.
    Semantics. Power, skill, ability, talent, etc. If a person can take you out with one punch or one sentence, he has something very serious over you. Call it what you want but you'd better consider it going in. Those people are dangerous!

    1. Sponsored Links
       

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3

Similar Threads

  1. Unlicensed Driving: Ticket for Driving Without a Valid License, Despite Valid Indian Driver's License
    By Asinghd in forum Driver's Licenses
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 07-16-2015, 09:48 AM
  2. Impound: Car Was Impounded for No Valid License when License was Valid
    By kurthorton45 in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-19-2015, 10:45 PM
  3. Harassment: Fishing Without a Valid License, Even Though It Was Valid
    By Domush in forum Criminal Charges
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-09-2010, 09:14 AM
  4. When Does a Will Become Valid
    By sparkysmagic in forum Estate Planning, Administration and Probate
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-08-2010, 09:01 PM
  5. H Visas: Which Visa is Valid
    By abhi raj in forum Visas for Business, Tourism and Family
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-20-2006, 10:29 AM
 
 
Sponsored Links

Legal Help, Information and Resources