a story of corruption and what a lot of you dont get.

[dude58677]

" I even took a pro se case against the Selective Service System which was not surprisingly rejected by the Judge before there was even a trial and the Judges corrupted the system by denying me a right to a jury trial which is what I demanded under the 7th amendment."

This made me laugh No one gets a trail by jury when suing the government.

And you have to be granted permission to sue the government. Yes, that is right, the Govt. cannot be sued unless they tell you that you can sue. Read the Federal Torts Claims Act. And even if the Act says you can sue, then you cannot have a jury only a judge.

It is called sovereign immunity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity

The reason for this
the sovereign is the historical origin of the authority which creates the courts. Thus the courts had no power to compel the sovereign to be bound by the courts, as they were created by the sovereign for the protection of his or her subjects.


So I guess when they rejected your claim, and denied your trial by jury you just assumed it was due to their corruption.. Or did you actually check to see if your claim against the Govt. was permissible and just forget that you cant get a trial by jury when suing the Govt.?

And why should you have to have permission? Because it is corruption...Duh

 

[jmcmsu]

No, it's a philosophical argument about the nature of sovereignty that you just don't understand. You also don't understand the difference between laws and rules you don't like and corruption. You don't need to go to law school to understand the difference either, although in your case it might not be such a bad idea. I'm in law school with about 900 other law students and they're all just normal people like me and you. When lawyers get caught for corruption they get disbarred (remember Bill Clinton lying under oath). The vast vast vast majority of lawyers are just normal white collar professionals.

Because of the nature of the adversarial system if one lawyer is corrupt or is using illegal methods to promote his/her client he is going to get called out by the lawyer on the other side and face severe sanctions.

 

[Paul.Bearer.of.Injustice]

"most lawyers ARE corrupt"

How could you ever even come close to even have a small shadow of a reason to believe this statement is true?

This is a general statement to which there is absolutely no basis for.

You just assume they are corrupt.

Thanks for explaining to me my own thought process.
You must be a lawyer since you are so quick to proclaim your cleverness (note: not intelligence) and aura of authority.

 

[dude58677]

No, it's a philosophical argument about the nature of sovereignty that you just don't understand. You also don't understand the difference between laws and rules you don't like and corruption. If you had gone to law school you would probably know the difference. I'm in law school with about 900 other law students and they're all just normal people like me and you. When lawyers get caught for corruption they get disbarred (remember Bill Clinton lying under oath). The vast vast vast majority of lawyers are just normal white collar professionals.

Legally- there is a right to a trial by jury under the 7th amendment even if the corrupt Supreme Court says otherwise.

Ethically- It is wrong to deny someone a chance to make their point even if you might disagree.

After I left pre-law and changed my major to business. At least they put ethics above law.

You're "Might makes right" mentality is the exact reason I left pre-law. I am amazed that Ron Paul has been able to deal with this garbage on a daily basis.

 

[jmcmsu]

Legally- there is a right to a trial by jury under the 7th amendment even if the corrupt Supreme Court says otherwise.

Ethically- It is wrong to deny someone a chance to make their point even if you might disagree.

After I left pre-law and changed my major to business. At least they put ethics above law.

You're "Might makes right" mentality is the exact reason I left pre-law. I am amazed that Ron Paul has been able to deal with this garbage on a daily basis.

Actually the right to a trial by jury goes back to English common law. In English common law there were Courts of Equity and Courts of Law. Judges sat on Courts of Equity and juries decided issues before Courts of Law. Because our 7th Amendment is based off of this common law and its legal precedents a trial by jury is not required in every type of legal action. Different types of legal causes of action create different outcomes as to whether or not the case goes before a judge or jury.

Furthermore, while I believe the Supreme Court has corrupted the Constitution it is not a corrupt institution nor are the individual judges on the Supreme Court corrupt persons.

 

[Paul.Bearer.of.Injustice]

What I hear from Dude5.... is that law was derived to serve ethics and preserve rights.
It is not that way anymore.
Most lawyers do whatever they can to win cases - not uphold 'law'. They are clever, but not intelligent, and are unthinking(of the higher good) paramecium who feel their way along the walls of rules until they come upon a crack to slip through.
Not all of course. There may be one or two. ;-p

 

[dude58677]

Actually the right to a trial by jury goes back to English common law. In English common law there were Courts of Equity and Courts of Law. Judges sat on Courts of Equity and juries decided issues before Courts of Law. Because our 7th Amendment is based off of this common law and its legal precedents a trial by jury is not required in every type of legal action. Different types of legal causes of action create different outcomes as to whether or not the case goes before a judge or jury.

The 7th amemdment is very clear, the right to a trial by jury if the suit is over 20 dollars. Denying this is no different than denying that Ron Paul wins debate polls, straw polls, etc and is instead nothing more than spamming.

 

[jmcmsu]

The 7th amemdment is very clear, the right to a trial by jury if the suit is over 20 dollars. Denying this is no different than denying that Ron Paul wins debate polls, straw polls, etc and is instead nothing more than spamming.

Sorry, you are just wrong on the facts, no offense. Here she is in all her glory, the 7th Amendment
"In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law."

Note the words "In suits at common law....according to the rules of common law"

Sorry to burst your bubble but according to the rules of common law not every cause of legal action was sent before a jury.

In England there were two different types of courts: the courts of common law and the courts of equity. The former was based on the strict provisions of the law and granted legal relief (monetary relief) while the latter was based on the principles of fairness and granted equitable relief (primarily non-monetary relief, such as injunctions, but also essentially monetary relief such as restitution, disgorgement, and equitable liens. ). Juries were used in the courts of common law, but not in the courts of equity. The distinctions found in the English system were preserved by the Seventh Amendment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventh_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

 

[Mr. White]

Wow, that was fun to jump back into and read.

Summary: ? Lawyers shouldn't become comissioners....because... we... are... ?

finish that please wombat

 

[ionlyknowy]

I got tired of this around page 5. My family has several friends who have been lawyers for a few decades. I don't hear first hand accounts, but talk like this is quite common. In some form or another this is true. He makes a point of saying local level, and makes another point of saying most.

So I would agree with him, as to the severity, well it varies probably.

That is exactly what we are arguing against, him saying that MOST lawyers are corrupt or corruptible.

Most is not the same as Many. Many is the same as A Few.

Many means less than 50% as does A Few.

Most means over 50%.


Now when you say that Most lawyers are corrupt or corruptible, then you are saying that over 50% of lawyers are this way.

My argument is, there is no way for anyone to know the truth of this argument unless we investigate every lawyers life in the US and look for traces of corruption.

But I am saying that I can pretty much guarantee that less than 50% of lawyers are corrupt or corruptible.

The ABA puts out a code of ethics, and if you do not abide by these, then you get disbarred, you may also be sued by your client for attorney malpractice.

Not many professions have these checks and balances integrated into the profession.

Everyone that says that most lawyers are corrupt has been brainwashed by the TV. Just like the MSM does to others, the TV has done it to you.

The only time a lawyer gets any air time on TV is if he is getting off a killer like OJ Simpson or something that is just as shocking.

Decades of this type of coverage has left America with a bad taste in their mouths.

Lets see, there are 180 ABA accredited law school in America, and there are about 250 students per 1st year class. So there are 45,000 new lawyers every year.

And since the average lawyer probably works for 18 years minimum that is 810,000 lawyers currently in America.

Just because you see about 10 of them each year in the news for something they did unethically doesnt mean that 500,000 of them are following the unethical ones.

 

[garrettwombat]

im not arguing about anything because what i know is fact. and i see it everyday.
so no matter what you tell me i will never believe anything that you say because it is here in front of my own two eyes and ears...
deny me if you want, what i said happens. and it happens often.
i was just warning you guys. get over yourselves.

"Lawyers shouldn't become commissioners..." for one if a lawyer was to run for commissioner i would hope he has more background than this, because they have nothing to do with the kind of experience you would need as a commissioner, mayor, or sheriff.

in the court room a lawyer cant lie, but he can also not do as good of a job, like not bring up important evidence... which i HAVE seen done.

it would just be a bad idea, to elect a lawyer into the position of a commissioner.
just like it would be a bad idea to elect a lobbyist as a commissioner...
a lot of the lawyers that run for these types of positions are in bed with a lot of the drug dealers. every lawyer knows if there client is guilty or not. it is there job to make it seem like they are innocent. its what they are paid to do... dont give me that crap about lawyers defend the law... im not buying that...
do you know how many lawyers i have talked to?
there are just certain types of people i do not feel we should take a risk with and elect them into certain county positions

and anyways, your missing the point everyone...
STFU about lawyers already.
this isn't even what my damn post was about.

 

[jmcmsu]

I don't know how many lawyers you have "talked to" but I know I am actually in law school and interact with lawyers everyday and you are so far off base it's not even funny. Also, you have provided absolutely no concrete evidence other than your own anecdotal stories. Sure, there are corrupt people in all walks of life and lawyers are no different. By no different I truly mean no different, not any more or less corrupt than any other profession. And as to every lawyer knows whether their client is guilty or not this is also untrue (ever heard of reasonable doubt). Furthermore, it is their job to vigorously pursue a defense of their client regardless of his or her guilt because in this way we oppose the power of the state to send us to jail or punish us without ever giving us a chance to defend ourselves. Your comments make it seem like you want the government to just lock all people up without a lawyer because "every lawyer knows if there client is guilty or not. it is there job to make it seem like they are innocent. its what they are paid to do... dont give me that crap about lawyers defend the law." This is not a good solution, trust me (although since I'm in law school you probably won't since I'm in bed with the drug dealers, the bankers and the builders...obviously.)

 

[Corydoras]

Garrett, for what reason are you generalizing from your situation to the rest of the country?

And for what reason have you not left to see the way the rest of the country goes, maybe somewhere that sheriffs are irrelevant and commissioners unheard-of?

 

[McDermit]

Should the campaign have made more of an effort at getting "reputable" names as delegates vs. normal unknown names?

Yes, yes, yes, and yes.

We're having a hard time with this locally, because we have some stubborn RP supporters who want everyone to get a gold star and to feel equal. But for all practical purposes, we need our delegate candidates to be people who are well known in the community, or at the very least, have a well known last name. (ie: dad was in politics, share a name with a politician or local business person, etc.)

If you don't KNOW who's running, you usually go for either the first on the list or a name that stands out as being familiar.

We're trying to pick the best 3 people we can to run for delegate... but we have some supporters who refuse to go along, and are running themselves just to prove a point.