Theft of Store Property Charge Against Wishes of Store Owner

[Zigner]

Your two sentences are empty of content.

Nope. Re-read your post and avoid sparring with me over this. In return, I will commit to sparing any further comment.

[Harold99]

Nope. Re-read your post and avoid sparring with me over this. In return, I will commit to sparing any further comment.

Oops, I was on the small screen of an I-Pad. I meant sparring.

[Taxing Matters]

If you were really good you might someday be able to argue the meaning of the word "the" like Bill Clinton did to the nation.

Lawyers can bullshit laypeople and juries but they cannot bullshit other professional bullshitters like other lawyers and judges, which makes them very effective when interfacing with the general public. One must avoid verbal sparing with lawyers just as one must avoid physical sparing with a highly trained fighter. Big difference is a lawyer would call it a fair fight when a pro fighter would not.

In others words, you saw that I was correct, you misquoted me, and you had no defense and won't man up to admit your error. So instead you go off on another diatribe against lawyers to deflect the issue.

[Mark47n]

It is a good lawyer's job to imply something without actually saying it. Would you agree? Like what you just did when you said "the difference is not minor." Instead of telling me what something is not, why didn't you say what it is? Like, is it moderate or major? Who knows what you said because you didn't say anything, which leads the reader to assume what you meant, and, it leaves the door wide open for you to deny what was implied by saying "not minor."

To say what something is not, like "not minor" is actually taking no stance on what it is while implying it is major. I guess you would have to experience a lawyer playing with the English language to rip you off for a large sum of money before you became aware of the art a lot of lawyers are highly skilled at. An yes, TM has some of those skills.

Implying is not the same as misrepresenting what someone says. A good attorney's job is to craft an argument supported by the evidence available, not to misrepresent facts (can be discredited in cross) and certainly not to lie.

There is a spectrum between minor and major. They are not binary states.

I grew up with attorneys and my brother was exceptional at discrediting a poorly constructed argument when we were kids and he was a heavy hitter on his debate team and still is since becoming an Ivy League PhD. I have availed myself of the services of attorneys a time or two.

Again, your bias and poor reading/comprehension are causing no end of problems and you just can't accept that these issues exist while rampaging through a thread and making it about you and your dislike of attorneys for numerous pages.

[Harold99]

In others words, you saw that I was correct, you misquoted me, and you had no defense and won't man up to admit your error. So instead you go off on another diatribe against lawyers to deflect the issue.

Yes, I misquoted you! But to insist that there is a glaringly different meaning between to the two statements is a stretch.

Like I said, I have watched lawyers do what you are doing with the English language and it disgusts me. But you sing to a choir here who would never speak out against you. It's the playing field that I signed up for. So go ahead do what you do with impunity. I however see through it.

Implying is not the same as misrepresenting what someone says. A good attorney's job is to craft an argument supported by the evidence available, not to misrepresent facts (can be discredited in cross) and certainly not to lie.

You have got to be kidding. Lawyers "do not misrepresent facts?" WHAT? THAT is what they specialize in.

The most obvious case of this is the OJ trial. If Cochran did not misrepresent facts, what did he do and how did he win at trial?

There is a spectrum between minor and major. They are not binary states.

By saying something is "not minor," you have gone on record as saying absolutely nothing regarding whether the issue is minor, moderate or major. Yet your implication to the casual reader is that it is moderate or major. Yet you fail to state that on record therefore giving you an out as to actually saying that. Like I said, to imply without actually saying anything (like you just did) is the artwork of a lawyer.

Saying that something is not something is verbal, evasive gymnastics. It's like saying "we are second to none" or "we are number one." Those statements come with implications while legally saying nothing of the sort.

[Taxing Matters]

Yes, I misquoted you!

There we go. Thank you for that.

But to insist that there is a glaringly different meaning between to the two statements is a stretch.

You initially said there was no difference. So there's progress here too. I think everyone else reading it can easily see the difference. That's good enough for me.

Like I said, I have watched lawyers do what you are doing with the English language and it disgusts me. But you sing to a choir here who would never speak out against you. It's the playing field that I signed up for. So go ahead do what you do with impunity. I however see through it.

You sometimes see something that's not there. Lawyers use language precisely; that's important when writing and oral argument are such a big part of what we do. There is nothing underhanded about that. That you aren't up to that kind of precise use doesn't make it evil. It's just a skill that lawyers spend time developing because we have to for our work. That's not important to the contracting work you do so you haven't had the need to develop those skills. But that's no reason to slam lawyers for it. It'd be like me slamming you for being much better at using construction tools than I am. You've had the time over the years to hone your skills doing that because it's important to the work you do. I've not spent the time developing those skills. That's not something I need for my work, and I've not had much need for those skills around my house either. I don't resent you for having skills that I lack. Indeed, I admire skilled craftspersons. Yet you seem to resent lawyers for having skills that you lack. I find that odd, but you're entitled to your opinion.

[Harold99]

You initially said there was no difference. So there's progress here too. I think everyone else reading it can easily see the difference. That's good enough for me.

If your three statements ("As a result, the judge may not even read it. Second, the judge can't do much with an angry letter anyway. At best it just gets tossed in the trash.") don't mean "the judge will likely toss the letter in the trash," then I'd like you take the time to explain how the average person will 'see it differently' than I stated.

You sometimes see something that's not there. Lawyers use language precisely; that's important when writing and oral argument are such a big part of what we do. There is nothing underhanded about that. That you aren't up to that kind of precise use doesn't make it evil. It's just a skill that lawyers spend time developing because we have to for our work. That's not important to the contracting work you do so you haven't had the need to develop those skills. But that's no reason to slam lawyers for it. It'd be like me slamming you for being much better at using construction tools than I am. You've had the time over the years to hone your skills doing that because it's important to the work you do. I've not spent the time developing those skills. That's not something I need for my work, and I've not had much need for those skills around my house either. I don't resent you for having skills that I lack. Indeed, I admire skilled craftspersons. Yet you seem to resent lawyers for having skills that you lack. I find that odd, but you're entitled to your opinion.

Communication skills are extremely important in my line of work. I could personally lose thousands if I misinformed or was unclear to a client.

Unlike your skills, my construction skills cannot be used for evil or to get over on a naive people. It would be my oral skills that would be used to get over on someone.

Also, if you don't think your oral skills cannot be used for evil purposed, what do you think your brethren, lawyer politicians are using their skills for? I'll tell you, the exact same thing the trial lawyers are using their skills for. To persuade the naive.

You have a tendency to do what most lawyers and politicians do...that is, to never concede.

[Taxing Matters]

If your three statements ("As a result, the judge may not even read it. Second, the judge can't do much with an angry letter anyway. At best it just gets tossed in the trash.") don't mean "the judge will likely toss the letter in the trash," then I'd like you take the time to explain how the average person will 'see it differently' than I stated.

Just that tossing it in the trash is one possibility. Remember, even if the judge can't do much with it that doesn't mean it gets tossed in the trash. It might get get copied to both lawyers and tossed in the court file after the judge reads it, might get returned to the defendant, or something else. You read into it more than is there. I simply listed a few possibilities. I did not express any view on the probablity of each one in the OP's case because I don't know the exact content of his planned "angry letter" and don't know the judge to whom he plans to send it.

You have a tendency to do what most lawyers and politicians do...that is, to never concede.

I do concede when I know I can't win. But of course I don't concede when I think I'm right. You aren't really any different in that respect from what I can see.

[Harold99]

Just that tossing it in the trash is one possibility. Remember, even if the judge can't do much with it that doesn't mean it gets tossed in the trash. It might get get copied to both lawyers and tossed in the court file after the judge reads it, might get returned to the defendant, or something else. You read into it more than is there. I simply listed a few possibilities. I did not express any view on the probablity of each one in the OP's case because I don't know the exact content of his planned "angry letter" and don't know the judge to whom he plans to send it.

I do concede when I know I can't win. But of course I don't concede when I think I'm right. You aren't really any different in that respect from what I can see.

You said the judge could or might throw it in the trash. I said that is highly unlikely because it is evidence that must be shared with both attorneys. If you doubt that then please explain why the judge in the murder trial shared my letter with both attorneys and the prosecutor took it so seriously that he felt the need to read and counter it to the jury?

Also your comment of conceding when you feel you can't win is spot on and very revealing. Thats because lawyers don't have a sense of right or wrong...only 'can I win' by using any tact possible...which includes lying, exaggerating and misrepresenting. And, you concede here much more often than you think you do...at least to me you do. Like when you edited my the post above to remove your incorrect point about my skills vs. yours, in that my skills cannot be used to hurt people.

Implying is not the same as misrepresenting what someone says. A good attorney's job is to craft an argument supported by the evidence available, not to misrepresent facts (can be discredited in cross) and certainly not to lie.

If a lawyer knew that his client was factually wrong about a certain point, yet saying it anyway would help his case, would it be lying for the lawyer to press that point anyway in hopes the other side did not expose the untruth in cross?

To me that is lying. To others it is good lawyering. Depends where one's morals are.

[Taxing Matters]

You said the judge could or might throw it in the trash. I said that is highly unlikely because it is evidence that must be shared with both attorneys. If you doubt that then please explain why the judge in the murder trial shared my letter with both attorneys and the prosecutor took it so seriously that he felt the need to read and counter it to the jury?

Three things about your friends murder case. First, you were not the defendant. Thus if the judge didn't like the letter you sent there were not going to be any repercussions against you. Second, in a murder trial letters to the court are expected in the sentencing phase, which is where your letter could be used in the manner you described. So it is my guess that was the situation here: you sent the letter to the court to take into account for sentencing. Absent something very unusual it would have been foolish for you to send a letter to the judge about your friend before or during his trial. Third, the OP said he wanted to send an "angry letter" to the judge. Angry letters rarely are useful for getting what you want, at least outside a customer service setting where the person getting the letter has a reason to want to please you. A judge has no need to please the defendant. I think that you would know better than to send that sort of letter to a judge. So I'm guessing that wasn't the sort of letter you sent in your friend's case. Unless your goal was to potentially tick off the judge, of course.

In any event, again, you are the one focusing on how likely it is that the judge in the OP's case will do any particular act with his letter, not me. I've simply listed possibilities. You can try to twist things to make it appear otherwise, but the fact remains I've not expressed any opinion on that and will not do so because I don't know the details of the letter he proposes to send nor anything about the judge that will hear the case.

Also your comment of conceding when you feel you can't win is spot on and very revealing. Thats because lawyers don't have a sense of right or wrong...only 'can I win' by using any tact possible...which includes lying, exaggerating and misrepresenting.

You truly then have no idea what I am like and how I practice law. That or you like doing what you claim lawyers do: twist things to discredit others.

And, you concede here much more often than you think you do...at least to me you do. Like when you edited my the post above to remove your incorrect point about my skills vs. yours, in that my skills cannot be used to hurt people.

A great example of you seeing something that isn't there. I have no obligation to respond to everything you say. Some things you say I simply don't feel I need to respond to. Yet you think when I do that that I have some evil, nefarious purpose because I'm a lawyer. You see what you want to see rather than just looking at what is there. When you don't address something I say (and yes, you have done that), do I think you have some particular bad motive in doing so? No. I think you just simply didn't want to address it for some reason. Nothing sinister about it. Yet you want to see evil in everything I do because I am a member of your most hated professional group — lawyers. The bias is obvious. Not surprising as you've admitted that bias before. But you've let that bias shape everything you read from me as though I'm trying to do something underhanded to you. I have no such intent here, Harold.

My sole goal on these boards is to provide those asking questions with accurate legal information. I correct you when you get things wrong. You obviously don't like that, but my goal in doing it is not to attack you. It's about giving good information to the OP. Nothing more. Trust me that I'm not sitting around here saying "how can I make Harold look bad?"