Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 4 5 6
Results 51 to 53 of 53
  1. #51
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    390

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

    Quote Quoting Harold99
    View Post
    RJR, I did not mean to mislead. I thought everyone here knew the different types of defendants.
    I know that, but the way you phrased it:

    Quote Quoting Harold99
    View Post
    I have been in court about thirteen times. As a plaintiff four times and as a defendant about nine times. How about you?
    If we use the "as follows" construction, PL then DF in the same sentence may be taken as, "I have sued"--- "I have been sued". I should have deciphered what you meant, no harm no foul.

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    7,958

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

    Quote Quoting Harold99
    View Post
    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!
    You were confident in your case — you believed you would win given the case you presented, which in this case apparently meant that you just assumed the court would believe your testimony. You may have made a mistake that I see lots of people make. They assume because they know what happened that the judge and jury will clearly see that too. That gives them a bias towards their own case when looking at the evidence they present. They think their evidence clearly better than whatever the other side presents. That's not unusual, that's human nature. But what they need to realize is that some neutral third party — the judge or jury — only has the evidence they see in court to go on; they don't know what really happened, and they are getting two different versions of it. They don't know starting out which side might be honest and which one lying (and it's not necessarily the case that either one is lying, of course). So it's up to the litigant to make sure that his/her case is the more convincing one to a person whom they've never met before and who has no reason to automatically assume that they are honest people with good memories. I see lots of pro se litigants lose simply because they trust too much that all they have to do is get up on the stand, tell their side, and they'll win. It's not that easy, as you apparently found out.

    Quote Quoting Harold99
    View Post
    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.
    There's nothing wrong or unethical about that line of questioning. That you seem to think so tells me that you have a very different concept of what trials should be like. Asking a witness to pin down the color of an object, if that's relevant to the case, is what a lawyer should do. And if the witness can't remember it exactly, then that's significant for the fact finder to know. I guess you think that's somehow evil to reveal that a witness does not remember exactly what he or she saw or experienced. But not revealing that would give the fact finder the false impression that the witness was more confident of what he or she saw than actually was the case.

    Quote Quoting Harold99
    View Post
    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.
    No, Harold, this is you attempting to twist what I've said to fit your narrative. I never said, as you claimed, that this is what a rape victim would think. I simply set up an example that if she should she think that all men were rapists from that one experience, it would be illogical to do so. It was an analogy to highlight the flawed logic of thinking that just because one person does something that all persons of the same group do the same thing. You do understand analogy, right? That's all it was, nothing evil as you characterize it but you do so anyway. Why? To fit your view that lawyers as a group are dishonest? That certainly is how it appears to me.

    Quote Quoting Harold99
    View Post
    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.
    Well, Harold, I think my take on what you said is justified considering you've said things like the following:

    Those are your own words, so you can't deny them. And I provided links to the threads so you cannot say I altered your words in any way. And your words clearly show, as you stated yourself, that you have a bias against attorneys as group based on your experiences in those relatively few trials you had and that you think that lawyers hurt good people "on a regular basis" and that you find them as a group "very dangerous, dishonest, and likely immoral and unethical people."

    So based on that, I think it's at least fair to say that you think that it is the norm for lawyers to be dangerous, dishonest, and likely immoral and unethical, all based on the few trials that you watched or were a party to. And my point is that, like a women thinking that men as a group are rapists after being raped by one would be illogical, so would thinking lawyers as a group are unethical just based on your limited experiences. I get why that happens, it's human nature; people do it all the time. Humans are not known for always being logical.

    Let me ask you this: would it be logical for me to believe that contractors as a group are crooks based on my experiences with a couple that were? Should I think because of that that you are likely a crook too because you are a contractor? I would say no. If you agree with that, then how is it logical for you to think that lawyers as a group are unethical and immoral based on a couple of experiences with them?

    I realize that this line of debate is likely pointless since, as I've said before, I doubt I'll change your views with anything I say. You have your views based on your experiences. I can understand why that is the case, even though I don't think it logical. It is, as I say, human nature to do it.


    Quote Quoting Harold99
    View Post
    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.
    All he did was get you to say what was true — that you didn't know the exact speed you were going. How is eliciting honest testimony sleazy? If that's the sort of thing that you build your bias against lawyers on it is very weak indeed since asking relevant questions is exactly what lawyers are supposed to do. Trying to find holes in the opposing party's testimony is exactly what the lawyer is supposed to do. Revealing the weaknesses in the other side's case is fair game, and the other side will do that to you too. Nothing wrong at all with simply asking questions, getting honest answers, and probing for weaknesses and uncertainty. That's all stuff the the fact finder should know — both the strengths AND weaknesses of each side's case. How else do you think it should go? Do you really think that the prosecutor should not have tried to challenge your case? That he should not have asked questions to find weaknesses in your case?

    And it wasn't that exchange that did you in since your statements still showed you were under the speed limit and not going 40 mph. If the judge had believed that, you'd have won. So that little bit of testimony didn't hurt you much, if at all. What almost certainly did you in was the cop's testimony about how fast you were going that the court accepted over your own claim that you were not speeding. What you needed to do was poke holes in the cop's testimony and, for good measure, you could explain why you couldn't have given an exact speed because of the slight variation over the distance traveled. Lying about the speed and saying were going exactly 32 mph would not have changed the outcome because the judge believed the cop over you. That's what you had to overcome, and that means poking holes in the cop's testimony to get the judge not to believe the cop.

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    408

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

    Quote Quoting Taxing Matters
    View Post
    You were confident in your case — you believed you would win given the case you presented, which in this case apparently meant that you just assumed the court would believe your testimony. You may have made a mistake that I see lots of people make. They assume because they know what happened that the judge and jury will clearly see that too. That gives them a bias towards their own case when looking at the evidence they present. They think their evidence clearly better than whatever the other side presents. That's not unusual, that's human nature. But what they need to realize is that some neutral third party — the judge or jury — only has the evidence they see in court to go on; they don't know what really happened, and they are getting two different versions of it. They don't know starting out which side might be honest and which one lying (and it's not necessarily the case that either one is lying, of course). So it's up to the litigant to make sure that his/her case is the more convincing one to a person whom they've never met before and who has no reason to automatically assume that they are honest people with good memories. I see lots of pro se litigants lose simply because they trust too much that all they have to do is get up on the stand, tell their side, and they'll win. It's not that easy, as you apparently found out.
    I was never that confident that we could place 100% of the blame on the other party because I knew I was partially at fault. I asked my attorney many times during the trial that I wanted to take partial blame. But, as many lawyers do, he did not want me to take any blame at all. I asked to re-take the stand to counter some of the damage that was done to me, but he would not let me. And when the defense put on their expert witnesses there was a mixture of lies and my attorney not being able to parse them.

    There's nothing wrong or unethical about that line of questioning. That you seem to think so tells me that you have a very different concept of what trials should be like. Asking a witness to pin down the color of an object, if that's relevant to the case, is what a lawyer should do. And if the witness can't remember it exactly, then that's significant for the fact finder to know. I guess you think that's somehow evil to reveal that a witness does not remember exactly what he or she saw or experienced. But not revealing that would give the fact finder the false impression that the witness was more confident of what he or she saw than actually was the case.
    Lawyers can operate any way they can get away with...ethical or not. But what a lawyer wants you to do is get the witness to say "I don't know my exact speed." So, in my case he was able to do that when I said my speed was between two speeds. My speed varied but he made it sound like I did not know what speed I was going. It was as if I said the color was either aqua or turquoise, or burgundy or maroon. Which, even though those are virtually the same colors a lawyer would make a big deal by saying "so, you don't know what color it was." And, half of the stupid jury would believe him that I did not have a clue to what color it was.

    No, Harold, this is you attempting to twist what I've said to fit your narrative. I never said, as you claimed, that this is what a rape victim would think. I simply set up an example that if she should she think that all men were rapists from that one experience, it would be illogical to do so. It was an analogy to highlight the flawed logic of thinking that just because one person does something that all persons of the same group do the same thing. You do understand analogy, right? That's all it was, nothing evil as you characterize it but you do so anyway. Why? To fit your view that lawyers as a group are dishonest? That certainly is how it appears to me.
    She would not think that all men are rapists, nor do I think all lawyers are unethical, untrustworthy or incompetent. We are justifiably not as trusting as we were after experiencing what some are capable of.

    Well, Harold, I think my take on what you said is justified considering you've said things like the following:

    Those are your own words, so you can't deny them. And I provided links to the threads so you cannot say I altered your words in any way. And your words clearly show, as you stated yourself, that you have a bias against attorneys as group based on your experiences in those relatively few trials you had and that you think that lawyers hurt good people "on a regular basis" and that you find them as a group "very dangerous, dishonest, and likely immoral and unethical people."
    I would not ever deny what I wrote and I do distrust and fear attorneys now because I have seen what they can do in their arena, the courtroom. In my case, neither attorney was clueless and they both knew their clients were at fault and were negligent. Yet, neither one ever admitted any fault. If they were ethical, they both would have admitted fault before ever entering the courtroom. But like I said, they each wanted to skin the other side alive. And, for the other side to spend well over $100,000 on the trial but only offer me $5,000 to settle seems ridiculous too.

    So based on that, I think it's at least fair to say that you think that it is the norm for lawyers to be dangerous, dishonest, and likely immoral and unethical, all based on the few trials that you watched or were a party to. And my point is that, like a women thinking that men as a group are rapists after being raped by one would be illogical, so would thinking lawyers as a group are unethical just based on your limited experiences. I get why that happens, it's human nature; people do it all the time. Humans are not known for always being logical.
    They do not think all men are rapists, rather untrustworthy. I think it is logical for the women who were raped by Bill Cosby to not trust men for a while. Wouldn't you?

    Let me ask you this: would it be logical for me to believe that contractors as a group are crooks based on my experiences with a couple that were? Should I think because of that that you are likely a crook too because you are a contractor? I would say no. If you agree with that, then how is it logical for you to think that lawyers as a group are unethical and immoral based on a couple of experiences with them?
    I think you should be leery of contractors being able to estimate a large job and stick to that price all the way to the end. I do not distrust you because I have been able to vet you here to a certain degree. I think you are very honest because a dishonest lawyer would not give these folks the time of day...and you do. So, I use a lot criteria to judge people, not just that you are a lawyer. Should you trust me? Not until you look me in the eye and hear me describe your job. Only then because I come from a trade that has bad people in it.

    I realize that this line of debate is likely pointless since, as I've said before, I doubt I'll change your views with anything I say. You have your views based on your experiences. I can understand why that is the case, even though I don't think it logical. It is, as I say, human nature to do it.
    Don't think that changing my mind is the only benefit from our exchange here. I find it fruitful that I can bounce my ideas off a lawyer and you should see the benefit of hearing someone explain why they distrust lawyers.

    All he did was get you to say what was true — that you didn't know the exact speed you were going. How is eliciting honest testimony sleazy? If that's the sort of thing that you build your bias against lawyers on it is very weak indeed since asking relevant questions is exactly what lawyers are supposed to do. Trying to find holes in the opposing party's testimony is exactly what the lawyer is supposed to do. Revealing the weaknesses in the other side's case is fair game, and the other side will do that to you too. Nothing wrong at all with simply asking questions, getting honest answers, and probing for weaknesses and uncertainty. That's all stuff the the fact finder should know — both the strengths AND weaknesses of each side's case. How else do you think it should go? Do you really think that the prosecutor should not have tried to challenge your case? That he should not have asked questions to find weaknesses in your case?
    In that case I was young and the prosecutor was crafty, not unethical. In my recent case the witnesses lied, and I feel strongly that they were put up to it during pretrial meetings. The defense lawyer took my depo statements and edited them to mean something else. He used witness testimony that he could physically see was impossible on a map. He lied about other facts that were verifiable online. He entered new testimony during closing arguments, which is forbidden. He read a witness' depo statements to the jury, when we had no way to question that witness in front of the jury. Not sure if that is even fair. He said "there is no evidence of an injury" after two surgeons verified there was during trial. IOW, he was unethical.

    And it wasn't that exchange that did you in since your statements still showed you were under the speed limit and not going 40 mph. If the judge had believed that, you'd have won. So that little bit of testimony didn't hurt you much, if at all. What almost certainly did you in was the cop's testimony about how fast you were going that the court accepted over your own claim that you were not speeding. What you needed to do was poke holes in the cop's testimony and, for good measure, you could explain why you couldn't have given an exact speed because of the slight variation over the distance traveled. Lying about the speed and saying were going exactly 32 mph would not have changed the outcome because the judge believed the cop over you. That's what you had to overcome, and that means poking holes in the cop's testimony to get the judge not to believe the cop.
    I was young, probably with long hair, and I was no match for a dapper officer who had been in that courtroom a hundred times. Heck, he probably golfs with the prosecutor.

    1. Sponsored Links
       

Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 4 5 6

Similar Threads

  1. Embezzlement: Processing a Fake Return to Steal Money from Work
    By Zoefromaccounting in forum Criminal Charges
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 03-11-2018, 08:58 AM
  2. Sex Offenses: Is Underage Role Play Between Adults Legal
    By Whatman in forum Criminal Charges
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-06-2015, 07:51 AM
  3. Does Money Play a Big Part in Custody Determination
    By jl609 in forum Child Custody, Support and Visitation
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 03-18-2010, 12:16 PM
  4. Forgery: Can It Be Legal To Make Fake ID's
    By Fogel1497 in forum Criminal Charges
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-06-2007, 07:13 AM
  5. Debt Collectors: Is Small Print on Invoices Legal and Enforceable?
    By justasking in forum Debts and Collections
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-04-2005, 04:04 PM
 
 
Sponsored Links

Legal Help, Information and Resources