Right to travel

[Osborn F Enready]

Also Mr. Tivo.

Do you care to address the issue of jury nullification?

I have heard that many states have made this concept illegal and that juries are not informed of their full rights before trial.

The right of jury nullification of bad law, is being REMOVED by law.

Does this seem ironic to you, as a lawyer?

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Lawyers are part of the problem. Even those with the truest citizen intents for well being, don't know THEY are part of the problem.

I see it is a simple problem, especially when you see the government for what it is.
Starting at the top, where most members of Congress ARE lawyers. They WRITE the laws and then vote on them and pass them. They also prosecute (and defend) and judge the cases of the laws they create.

Lawyers wrote and passed the Patriot Act, among other travesties. Lawyers are the ones who didn't bother to READ the Patriot Act before voting on it. Of course, even though theyCREATED it, when they were called on it they had the nerve to use not reading their own creation AS A DEFENSE!

Lawyers have created a patchwork of laws that alternately seem to apply to nobody and everybody, depending on the whim of a judge because these laws are apparently never written in clear language where the average citizen can understand what they mean without the necessity of another lawyer to EXPLAIN them.
Lawyers continue to crank out these vague laws without bothering to eliminate the OLD laws they have replaced or superseded.

If it weren't for lawyers and their fondness for vague laws, and LOTS of them the Supreme Court could be staffed by part-timers. I strongly believe if the laws were well written and kept to a manageable number the innumerable challenges and opinions of them would be unnecessary. However, these things are not clear and concise, nor do they cause older laws to be eliminated, and I believe this is by design. Just as psychiatry treats the mental illnesses they themselves DEFINE, the legal profession creates the same laws they themselves must define and explain. It's easy to justify the need for something when you are in TOTAL control of its creation and use.

And the fact that there ARE lawyers who work for people their numbers are not sufficient to color over the black eye the legal community has given itself. Or to put it another way, just how much good is it to provide free legal services to people when those providing the service are part of a group which caused the NEED for the services to begin with.

Of course the argument will be made that these lawyers are different people, subject to varying degrees of skill and honesty. However, they are ALL part of the same organization which leads one to correctly suppose "the bar" is not some legal deity from which all things good and right originate. It is more like a lawyers union than anything else. They create the standards for themselves with no outside oversight, at least none that I can see.


I suppose I'm just not a big fan of lawyers.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I say: As in like JOB DESCRIPTION? ...goals of their client.

About half wrong. The majority of lawyers do not represent their clients in court at all. That is because the majority of legal work takes place outside a courtroom

Now, what are they REALLY? ... over-priced, grease ball hagglers who usually do most of their work before court is in session.

First of all, as I explained, since most lawyers are neither litigators nor criminal lawyers, most lawyers are not handling "cases" at all. Most legal work has nothing to do with when court is in session.
Second, are you saying plea bargaining is bad? If so, you obviously lack an understanding of it. Plea bargaining does many things that benefit society. It saves time and taxpayer money. It gets convictions for people that admit their guilt that might otherwise be impossible. I'm not saying it is perfect, and sometimes in certain jurisdictions it is overused, but by and large people (voters) like plea bargaining, because there hasn't been any motion to eliminate it.

I PHYSICALLY WATCHED an aquaintance BUY themselves out of a accident/injury DUI case, IN COURT. How? Welllllll, the judge and the lawya go wayyy back. Just a "good time favor" between good old boys.....at least the good old boys who know how to work the system like a 3 penny hooker.

Anecdotal evidence. In "all" your experience with lawyers, you saw a couple of dishonest ones. Wow. Well in "all" my experience with limo drivers, I've seen a few that were uneducated know-it-alls who drove me crazy from the moment I got in the car to the moment I got out. I guess that means they're all like that, right?

I have seen the history of the U.S. BAR, which is all I care about. Does it matter to me that our BAR association in this nation is supported by corrupt BARS who are aiding constitutonal subversion in other nations?

The ABA is not the same as the bar. Again, you lack an understanding of the situation, so you make something up. Little known fact: Membership in the ABA is not required for lawyers. A lot of practicing attorneys aren't members. Being a member of the "bar" means you have been sworn in and admitted to practice in a particular court.

You also missed my point. My point was that the bar, NOT the "bar association" predates the existance of the United States. Gee, requiring that people be actually good at their job before they represent someone in court, what a terrible idea. I guess you complained when your limo company made sure you had a driver's license?

I say: NO, I am saying that the BAR lawyers are taught that the modern interpretations of the Constitution are valid, legal and ACCEPTED as law.

Really? Have you been to law school? How do you know what lawyers are taught?
Lawyers are taught, more than anything else, that the law is constantly changing (because legislatures and other bodies change it) and the main thrust of law school is geared towards thinking analytically, understanding some basic concepts of law, and mostly learning how to study the law and research it.
And it IS useful to learn what is the VALID law because that is what will be applied. You know what though? We also learn that if we don't think the current interpretation is what should be applied, we learn that there are ways to change it to what we think the valid interpretation is. You know, voting. It's that thing we can do that changes out the government?

Notice the last sentence in the quote above...... Today, the stated mission of the American Bar Association is "to be the national representative of the legal profession, serving the public and the profession by promoting justice, professional excellence and respect for the law." It says respect for the law, which is quite vague. I don't have respect for all law, nor should anyone. I have respect for the only law of this nation that is supreme to all law, which is the Constitution of the United States.

..sigh... do you even understand what the law is? The law is the Constitution. The law is also case law, it is also statute, it is also administrative law. There are many types of law, all based on the Constitution, and all valid within the Constitutional limits.

You have respect only for the Constitution? So traffic laws are invalid? criminal laws are invalid?

I say: And what about the changes in law with regards to corporations? IT is funny that you say corporations have NO rights. Patently funny. Can I quote you at a later date on this?

Corporations are not covered by the Constitutional rights of the citizens. They do not have rights against self-incrimination, etc. Surprise, you didn't understand what I meant.

Can you tell me the difference between the "incorporation" of a company, or the "incorporation" of a city?

Not clear why this matters.

Why is a corporate owner, EVEN AN LLC owner, able to obtain a full-auto weapons license with less restrictions than a private citizen, with the main hold-out being the money for the license? According to all police, and lawyers that I have talked to, they say it automatically passes the "necessity" clause, so only fees and basic background checks are required.

Ummm and a corporation's owner is a PERSON, not a corporation. Again, corporations have no rights. Whether corporation owners, or rich people in general, get special rights is another huge issue in itself. Frankly, I doubt this provision exists, as you have not cited to any source and you have a tendency to take rumors and urban myths as fact.

I say: Only because the BAR has helped the nation swing away from actual jury trial, due to the fact they already ignore the BASIC CONTRACT THAT IS THE LAW OF THE LAND. So yea, I bet contract cases can be really really sticky.

I am not even going to try to explain in full detail why contract cases are complex. MOST law does not center around "court cases". Contract law is an area, in particular, that does not. It has nothing to do with the Constitution. Again, your lack of understanding of the law gives you these ridiculous biases... If two corporations write a contract, agreeing to deliver goods for a certain price on a monthly basis over time, it has nothing to do with the Constitution. It DOES have to do with writing a contract that covers as many contingencies as possible, to avoid problems later. What happens if the goods are late? What happens if payments are missed? These are contingencies that must be contracted for so that each side understands their rights and responsibilities under the contract. I guess they could just look at the Constitution, right? Too bad only your copy has the section about the right to have widgets delivered on time even if there is bad traffic on the freeway.

I say: You are being droll, right? I asked YOU what YOUR definition of Stare Decisis was, remember? Shall I elaborate? STARE DECISIS - Latin. "to stand by that which is decided." The principal that the precedent decisions are to be followed by the courts. So, a bad judge makes a bad precedent, that is not challenged or overturned. What happens? Who bears the burden of being faced with that overturning? Now imagine, or I should say observe instead of imagine, 156 years of corrupt judges filtering into the courts gradually.

The legislatures can and do "overturn" court decisions all the time. Most recently, Kelo v. New London was quickly overturned by Congress, who wrote a law clearly defining "public use" for the purposes of eminant domain.

[tivodan1116]

...continued

In the begginning of the nation, while the forefathers were still alive, law was observed and carried out.

I'm glad you agree. Let me tell you about one of these things that happened in the beginning of the nation. Marbury v. Madison. The case in which the Supreme Court first used and wrote about the notion of judicial review, which was the principle from Art I, s. 3 that gives the federal courts jurisdiction over Constitutional disputes. They wrote this decision while most of the founding fathers were still alive. The case is Marbury v. MADISON. One of the chief architects of the Article which gave the Court its jurisdiction was in fact the defendant in the case! It was, in fact, Madison's brief in support of his position that the court could settle disputes over federal law and the Constitution that helped the Court shape its opinion.

AS time passed by, corrupt, or shall I say "partisan" judges were appointed in year after year. This trend continued up until what we have now. Not only a majority held Congress, AND Senate, but also a majority held judicial branch, Attourney General, and EXECUTIVE branch, who also happens to have Kings proclamation powers, thanks to the Unconstitutional Executive Order.

The people deserve exactly the government they have. Some Judges are appointed by elected representatives, most are elected. Representatives and the head of the executive branch are elected. What would you like lawyers to do (or not do) about making sure people pull the right levers every November?

Where please, is a check, or a balance. The only CHECK I see is public perception and information, which is lacking. The only balance I see is the rifles on my wall.

Or, maybe, elections? You know, vote for people you like? I agree the election system is currently void of good results, but that is because voters are stupid, not because lawyers are somehow corrupting the Constitution.

What do citizens do when all courts, including the HIGHEST court, refuse to address national petitions for redress of grievance, REPEATEDLY?

How about vote? Courts do not address "petitions". Politicians address "petitions". Courts handle cases. Or are you asking Courts to do something they are not Constitutionally equipped to do? What side are you on?

While at the same time, I can show you where each and every single unalienable (is that word open to interpretation to?) right that is enumerated in the Bill of Rights, is violated at several levels in STANDING laws?

I happen to agree, but that doesn't really reflect on the profession of lawyers. It more reflects on the apathy and stupidity of voters, who are free to elect anyone they like, but are mostly too stupid to vote for anyone other than the two major parties.

Look, laws are not written by lawyers. Laws are written by politicians. Because many of them happened to be lawyers before they became politicians does not mean they are still working as a lawyer. Would you say Bill Frist is a "doctor" or a "politician"? Would you say George W. Bush is a "baseball team owner" or a "politician"?

Welcome to the plight of every working man. If the shoe doesn't fit, you should be proud and not be offended. Surely you haven't missed all the "lawyer" jokes circulating since.... Lawyers existed?

I enjoy lawyer jokes. They are jokes. That is different than seriously blaming lawyers for the problems of society, which is a cop-out, among other things. Again, the people get exactly the government they deserve.

If you are 1/3 as honest as you claim, you are like the 10% minority of lawyers, based on what I have seen, heard and read.

Every profession has some dishonest practitioners. Every job has its bad eggs. The concept you are asserting is simply preposterous: That somehow, despite the assertion I gather from your other posts that you think most working people are at least slightly above zero on the decency scale, most lawyers are bad. So lawyers attract a ridiculously disproportionate number of bad people. It is irrational to think that while most people are decent and most professions are made up of most honest people, law is somehow filled with almost entirely corrupt, evil people.

Tell me that is a joke right? I guess you never heard of management meetings, doctors keeping up with new practices, pilots, etc etc etc.

These are all items that are required, yes, and may be unpaid at that particular time. What I mean is lawyers taking clients for free is required in most states to remain admitted. Doctors are not REQUIRED to take patients for free (except in emergency rooms and even then they send them a bill). Businesspeople are not REQUIRED to sell their goods or services for free. Pilots (and limo drivers) are not REQUIRED to fly a certain number of passengers per year at no cost to keep their license.

By the way, whats with the "membership"? Are you a noble?

Ha ha, don't think I don't see where you're going. This is where you throw in the ridiculous, completely debunked urban myth about the so-called "13th Amendment" against titles of nobility that makes lawyers illegal because they (occasionally) use the title "Esquire"... Please.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Scribbler1 I see it is a simple problem, especially when you see the government for what it is. Starting at the top, where most members of Congress ARE lawyers. They WRITE the laws and then vote on them and pass them. They also prosecute (and defend) and judge the cases of the laws they create.

The people deserve exactly the government they get. All of those lawyers were voted for by someone.

Lawyers wrote and passed the Patriot Act, among other travesties. Lawyers are the ones who didn't bother to READ the Patriot Act before voting on it. Of course, even though theyCREATED it, when they were called on it they had the nerve to use not reading their own creation AS A DEFENSE!

Hmm. I missed when George Bush became a lawyer. Bill Frist and others too. What law school did they go to?
People in politics are not lawyers, they are politicians. If you have a degree in nursing, and you work in advertising, are you a nurse or an ad agent???

Lawyers have created a patchwork of laws that alternately seem to apply to nobody and everybody, depending on the whim of a judge because these laws are apparently never written in clear language where the average citizen can understand what they mean without the necessity of another lawyer to EXPLAIN them. Lawyers continue to crank out these vague laws without bothering to eliminate the OLD laws they have replaced or superseded.

LAWYERS do not "crank out laws". POLITICIANS make laws after they are ELECTED by voters in representative government. Blame the right people for bureaucracy.

If it weren't for lawyers and their fondness for vague laws, and LOTS of them the Supreme Court could be staffed by part-timers.

No one has a fondness for vague laws. If the law is "vague" why is the tax code over a million pages long? Are you sure you want to use the word "vague"?

I strongly believe if the laws were well written and kept to a manageable number the innumerable challenges and opinions of them would be unnecessary. However, these things are not clear and concise, nor do they cause older laws to be eliminated, and I believe this is by design. Just as psychiatry treats the mental illnesses they themselves DEFINE, the legal profession creates the same laws they themselves must define and explain.

I can explain how ridiculous this argument (and Osborne's original one) are by just repeating Osborne's original post, with a slight difference. Observe:

[tivodan1116]

Doctors, being REQUIRED, due to complexity of medicine, DUE TO STRAYING FROM HOMEOPATHY which was brought on by the adoption of the AMA, and the concept that we want to do the best job possible treating people, instead of just applying nonspecific, one-size-fits-all remedies and hoping for the best.

Doctors are part of the problem. Even those with the truest citizen intents for well being, don't know THEY are part of the problem.

Doctor's appointment should be this simple....

"Did you feel sick Mr. --------?"

"Yes indeed sir, my ------ hurts"

"Oh, ok."

"Can you show me where it hurts Mr. ------?"

"Yes I can."

"Ok, we'll just remove that part. Or do some bloodletting"

Nothing more than common sense.


Guess what? Things get more complex as civilization gets more advanced. Transportation for one. Just as 200 years ago doctors didn't have to develop methods of fixing people's injuries from car crashes, lawyers didn't have to worry about DUI cases.

[tivodan1116]

It's easy to justify the need for something when you are in TOTAL control of its creation and use.

Really? I was under the impression that lawyers were funded by clients, who generally pay them of their own free will for services rendered. Lawyers are supported by magical evil slush funds? Cool, I guess I won't worry about advertising then.

And the fact that there ARE lawyers who work for people their numbers are not sufficient to color over the black eye the legal community has given itself. Or to put it another way, just how much good is it to provide free legal services to people when those providing the service are part of a group which caused the NEED for the services to begin with.

Oh, so some lawyers are good, but some are bad, based on your morals? So, like, personal injury lawyers are good because they represent the "little guy", but insurance defense lawyers are bad? Oh, no wait, that's not PC to say. Insurance defense lawyers are "good" because personal injury lawyers are ambulance chasers. Do you see how stupid it is to judge a profession based on your limited morals?

I don't see how lawyers created the "need" for their services. This is like saying doctors, by inventing medicines, created the "need' for doctors.

I don't understand what is wrong with having experts in the law, just like having experts in everything else? I could repair my own car, or drive my own limo from the airport, or heal my own sickness, or design and assemble my own television. The reason I don't is because there are experts who are available for a price who are much better at this than me. You two are acting like "gee, if only courts were warm fuzzy places, everyone would just represent themselves and lawyers would cease to exist"

Of course the argument will be made that these lawyers are different people, subject to varying degrees of skill and honesty. However, they are ALL part of the same organization which leads one to correctly suppose "the bar" is not some legal deity from which all things good and right originate.

Yeah! So let's prosecute all doctors when one of them touches a patient! Let's send Osborne a bill because a limo driver knocked a mirror off my wife's car! Let's send all black people to jail because some of them commit crimes! Let's kill all the Jews because thousands of years ago a couple of them said to kill Jesus!

It is more like a lawyers union than anything else.

Oh, so other people are allowed to have unions, but when lawyers do it, it's wrong?

By the way, would you care to tell me what "organization" ALL lawyers are a part of?

I suppose I'm just not a big fan of lawyers.

Sorry, I'm not a big fan of uninformed people spouting off about things by repeating myths and stereotypes.

[PatrickHenry]

I actually LIKE my lawyers. They are my advocates in a legal system in which I have little knowledge or power. If I am sued, my lawyers are my best friends. If the Feds or corporations start trashing my rights, who goes to bat for me? Lawyers.

Thank goodness for PrePaid Legal Services, Inc., my access to affordable lawyers...

[Osborn F Enready]

While I have much disagreement, I will skip the itemized reply for brevities sake. WE are polar opposites on this I think Tivo.

How do you feel about Jury Nullification? I started a thread on just that, also.