quote:

ORIGINAL: MrBukani

I have not claimed lawyers are not allowed to make a lot of money. I am saying the letter of the constitution contradicts the everyday practice of trials.
We are never equals but we have equal rights. And the commercial practice of medicine and law contradicts equal rights.
For all I care every lawyer and doctor can make a million dollars a year.
But commercial practice of these proffesions without a doubt creates inequality in trials.
I can do my homework but maybe I have a mongloid brain and just cant do my homework as good as you. Does it mean because I am born dumber I have less rights?
Is that the kind of society you want to live in?

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrBukani

Off course my premise has flaws. Just like the current law and practice has lots of flaws and loopholes. There is always chances of misjudgements. I just advocate a better and more equal system. And I am sure this can be done. Lawyers, judges and prosecuters choose an honorable profession just like doctors and policeofficers. In retrospect they all save lives. They all work hard. So how do we define what the job is worth?
Why should a judge make less money while his judgement is more important then the defenselawyer or the prosecuter. They all have kind of the same education.
How can we ensure that the most important positions are handled by the best people?
On average the smartes lawpractisers will choose to be a lawyer, not a judge or DA, cause we all love to make lots of money.
Does this not contradict the constitution?

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrBukani
I will give a simple example how the law in itself can be inequal.
The law all over the world automatically gives a child the surname of the father.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrBukani
I will give a simple example how the law in itself can be inequal.
The law all over the world automatically gives a child the surname of the father.

that is not entirely true.. you can apparently use either parents surname or a combination of both in Quebec (Canada)..

"A child’s surname must be composed of the surname of one of his or her parents or a combination of the surnames of both parents."
http://www4.gouv.qc.ca/EN/Portail/Citoyens/Evenements/DevenirParent/Pages/attri_noms_prenm_nouvn.aspx

quote:

The substantial weight placed on every parents’ entitlement to have their child bear their surname is paramount in the law of New Jersey, and codified by statute. N.J.A.C. 8:2-1.4.

Where both parents cannot agree upon a surname for a child at the time of a child’s birth, both parents have the legal right to provide a surname for the child, with the child’s name being alphabetically hyphenated to reflect the name chosen by both parents. N.J.A.C. 8:2-1.4(a)(2). Deference will only be afforded to the parent with custody of the child in the event the other parent is “unavailable” at the time of the child’s birth. N.J.A.C. 8:2-1.4(a)(1).

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrBukani
I will give a simple example how the law in itself can be inequal.
The law all over the world automatically gives a child the surname of the father.

that is not entirely true.. you can apparently use either parents surname or a combination of both in Quebec (Canada)..

"A child’s surname must be composed of the surname of one of his or her parents or a combination of the surnames of both parents."
http://www4.gouv.qc.ca/EN/Portail/Citoyens/Evenements/DevenirParent/Pages/attri_noms_prenm_nouvn.aspx

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrBukani

You see this a lot with public figures like OJ Simpson for instance. He was found not guilty in criminal court but was found guilty in a civil case. Now i don't know if he had an army of lawyers but that is not the point.

The point is more money can buy more expertise. And since the law in many ways is overcomplicated the rich nearly always have the advantage.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrBukani

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrBukani
I will give a simple example how the law in itself can be inequal.
The law all over the world automatically gives a child the surname of the father.

that is not entirely true.. you can apparently use either parents surname or a combination of both in Quebec (Canada)..

"A child’s surname must be composed of the surname of one of his or her parents or a combination of the surnames of both parents."
http://www4.gouv.qc.ca/EN/Portail/Citoyens/Evenements/DevenirParent/Pages/attri_noms_prenm_nouvn.aspx

Gotta love those canadians. One hooray for the maple leaf people. But I am sure i can find some partiarchal based laws in canadian law that are outdated.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrBukani

You see this a lot with public figures like OJ Simpson for instance. He was found not guilty in criminal court but was found guilty in a civil case. Now i don't know if he had an army of lawyers but that is not the point.

The point is more money can buy more expertise. And since the law in many ways is overcomplicated the rich nearly always have the advantage.

I disagree with your conclusion about OJ's criminal trial, IMO, he was just dam lucky plus imo the jury had a bias.. There are various public figures that no matter the money and expertise, they still had their arses tossed in jail.. Martha Stewart comes to mind.. Conrad Black too.. Imo, if the US govt sets its sights on you, it doesnt matter the money you have or the star team of lawyers, they are gonna throw as many charges at you as they can and something is gonna stick and you are going to jail.. the only question is for how long and which jail will you be sent to..

JMO!

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrBukani

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrBukani
I will give a simple example how the law in itself can be inequal.
The law all over the world automatically gives a child the surname of the father.

that is not entirely true.. you can apparently use either parents surname or a combination of both in Quebec (Canada)..

"A child’s surname must be composed of the surname of one of his or her parents or a combination of the surnames of both parents."
http://www4.gouv.qc.ca/EN/Portail/Citoyens/Evenements/DevenirParent/Pages/attri_noms_prenm_nouvn.aspx

Gotta love those canadians. One hooray for the maple leaf people. But I am sure i can find some partiarchal based laws in canadian law that are outdated.

I dont understand the big deal about that tho.. if you dont like your last or first or middle name, then legally change it to what you want.. I have done that myself and it didnt cost that much, where I lived it was just sending in a form and the fee to the govt.. voila! changed in a matter of weeks..

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrBukani

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrBukani

You see this a lot with public figures like OJ Simpson for instance. He was found not guilty in criminal court but was found guilty in a civil case. Now i don't know if he had an army of lawyers but that is not the point.

The point is more money can buy more expertise. And since the law in many ways is overcomplicated the rich nearly always have the advantage.

I disagree with your conclusion about OJ's criminal trial, IMO, he was just dam lucky plus imo the jury had a bias.. There are various public figures that no matter the money and expertise, they still had their arses tossed in jail.. Martha Stewart comes to mind.. Conrad Black too.. Imo, if the US govt sets its sights on you, it doesnt matter the money you have or the star team of lawyers, they are gonna throw as many charges at you as they can and something is gonna stick and you are going to jail.. the only question is for how long and which jail will you be sent to..

JMO!

I must admit I am no expert on the OJ case. The contradiction I was pointing out for all I know, is that he was found guilty of murder in a civil case and not guilty in the criminal case. That is strikingly odd to me. And for sure there must be one wrong, either the civil or criminal trial.
Yes public figures go to jail too. But on average you will find their punishment is less severe. And for instance companies can ruin peoples lives but because the big companies are considered a judicial entity. Directors are seldomly prosecuted for their mistakes. I dont know the english legal terms for this but I will look it up later.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrBukani

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrBukani

You see this a lot with public figures like OJ Simpson for instance. He was found not guilty in criminal court but was found guilty in a civil case. Now i don't know if he had an army of lawyers but that is not the point.

The point is more money can buy more expertise. And since the law in many ways is overcomplicated the rich nearly always have the advantage.

I disagree with your conclusion about OJ's criminal trial, IMO, he was just dam lucky plus imo the jury had a bias.. There are various public figures that no matter the money and expertise, they still had their arses tossed in jail.. Martha Stewart comes to mind.. Conrad Black too.. Imo, if the US govt sets its sights on you, it doesnt matter the money you have or the star team of lawyers, they are gonna throw as many charges at you as they can and something is gonna stick and you are going to jail.. the only question is for how long and which jail will you be sent to..

JMO!

I must admit I am no expert on the OJ case. The contradiction I was pointing out for all I know, is that he was found guilty of murder in a civil case and not guilty in the criminal case. That is strikingly odd to me. And for sure there must be one wrong, either the civil or criminal trial.
Yes public figures go to jail too. But on average you will find their punishment is less severe. And for instance companies can ruin peoples lives but because the big companies are considered a judicial entity. Directors are seldomly prosecuted for their mistakes. I dont know the english legal terms for this but I will look it up later.

as i understand it, there were different levels of proof,.. it was easier to prove OJ guilty in the civil trial, the standard is stricter in criminal court.. plus imo the biggest factor was that the jury did not have the same bias as there was in the criminal trial.. Imo, the results would be reversed had the juries been reversed.. so if the jury for the civil trial had been the jury at the criminal trial then he would have gone to jail forever for the double murders.. JMO..

Directors in big companies tend to be more careful and not do anything to pierce the corporate veil... Directors of smaller companies are not as astute and fuck up so in those instances the corporate veil might be pierced, but those cases are more for civil lawsuits.. Imo, Conrad Black did not get a light sentence.. imo, Martha Stewart should not have gone to jail at all & imo she was made an example by the govt (some people will disagree with me on that tho! )..

Imo, Directors in big companies are not prosecuted mostly based on them giving money to their buddies in govt and being connected, it imo gives them a shield that they should not have.. but that is quite different than saying its cuz they can afford greedy lawyers.. its cuz they can afford greedy politicians!

Jmo..

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrBukani

BTW you can notice I dont use the phrases I think, IMO nor JMO. It's kind of a grammatical overkill. About everything we say outside of qouting is an opinion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrBukani

BTW you can notice I dont use the phrases I think, IMO nor JMO. It's kind of a grammatical overkill. About everything we say outside of qouting is an opinion.

overkill??? overkill???

I dont talk like that in real life but this is the internet and I like to make my posts as clear as I can and when its my opinion i like to make it clearly known that is what it is, if its from an article i say so and that i read it somewhere, usually provide links if i can find those articles again.. cuz ya know someone will come along and say "where is your proof?" if you dont use "imo" all the frikin' time.. and opinion is harder to argue since its an individual thing and most people recognize that everyone is entitled to theirs, you know, I may not agree with you but will defend your right to say it.. that sorta thang..

Imo your beef is not with greedy lawyers, its primarily with a system set up and managed by greedy politicians.. but you know the saying about people getting the govt they deserve..

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrBukani

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrBukani
BTW you can notice I dont use the phrases I think, IMO nor JMO. It's kind of a grammatical overkill. About everything we say outside of qouting is an opinion.

overkill??? overkill???

I dont talk like that in real life but this is the internet and I like to make my posts as clear as I can and when its my opinion i like to make it clearly known that is what it is, if its from an article i say so and that i read it somewhere, usually provide links if i can find those articles again.. cuz ya know someone will come along and say "where is your proof?" if you dont use "imo" all the frikin' time.. and opinion is harder to argue since its an individual thing and most people recognize that everyone is entitled to theirs, you know, I may not agree with you but will defend your right to say it.. that sorta thang..

Imo your beef is not with greedy lawyers, its primarily with a system set up and managed by greedy politicians.. but you know the saying about people getting the govt they deserve..

I heard about the tactic of lawyers cutting meat of the bone from a lawyer. It's a general accepted tactic within some firms. Lawyers, bankers and captains of industry can be more evil then politicians in a way. Cause it's the companies that lobby their shit to the politicians. Not the other way round.
So NO, it's not just the politicians, thats not where the mayhem starts.
The evil is born in greedy bitches and bastards.
Although we all know politics is infiltrated by the industry on a big scale.
Evil lurks in all humans with twisted morals.