|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On March 06 2018 13:48 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Hard hitting news.
#qualityjournalism
"I know this will sound awkward" is a surefire way to realise that the next question you gonna ask is pretty retarded. I'll admit, i don't know that guy apart from apparently he's selfdeconstructing currently, but jesus fucking christ.
Might as well ask her to close her legs because it smells like an old tin of tuna.
Not to mention that he didn't make a drunk impression on me.
On March 06 2018 11:22 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:
Unsurprisingly, Mr. "Shots fired in paris police station, germany" isn't able to tell the difference. Careful that Kimmie doesn't get around embargoes/sanctions by saying that he's from the good korea, so gief food n stuff.
|
On March 06 2018 14:57 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2018 11:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 06 2018 11:09 Plansix wrote:On March 06 2018 11:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 06 2018 11:00 Plansix wrote:On March 06 2018 10:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 06 2018 10:43 Plansix wrote:On March 06 2018 10:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 06 2018 10:25 Toadesstern wrote:On March 06 2018 09:34 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
I would factor caseload into the quality of legal representation. There's basically no question that public defenders are shit, not by way of incompetence, but by way of unrealistic expectations. No private lawyer would ever consider the type of caseload a public defender sees.
In my eyes, that's not justice, just going through the motions. I'm not really seeing any moral or ethical justifications either, outside of "money is god".
EDIT: That's why I'm of the opinion our legal system is a farce run by brutes. I just don't see an alternative. You want an incentive for people to get good at their job and thus earn more than an "average" or "bad" lawyer, whatever that may be to you. So that's fine. But if I'm understanding your system correctly in that you have to pay your fees no matter if you win or lose that'd be a nice point to start changing something. At least make it so the one losing has to pay so that you can't just get spammed out by someone willing to pay a lot until you can't afford to fight it anymore. Again, just hearsay and no idea if it really works that way or if it's an exaggerationg. I can acknowledge fixing it isn't an easy job, but recognizing it's immoral and unethical core seems beyond nearly all of it's professionals. You would have to go state by state changing it to loser pays. All of our laws and basic civil procedures operate under the assumption that both sides pay. Damages too. Trying to do the entire system at once would do more harm than good. And sweeping reforms are less productive without continual oversight for abuses. We're not at the "fixing" part yet, we're at the getting professionals in the field to acknowledge the core premise of 'justice' is perverted by the system we have, regardless of how or if it can be fixed. We all know we work in an imperfect, flawed system. Agreeing on how to fix and improve it is the hard part. I've seen very few people in the legal field approach it from the position that the core goal of "justice" is systematically undermined by the way we pursue it. 'Flawed', sure, 'fundamentally unsound', not much buy-in to that from legal professionals. Most people in the legal field are generally more educated than on the subject and difficulties surrounding the justice system, so I’m not surprised. But if you find a quick fix, let us know. I think xDaunt speaks a lot more for the top rated minds of the legal fields on this than you do. Like I said, no one is arguing there's a quick or easy fix, but that the idea that the legal system can't achieve justice as it stands isn't one endorsed by the majority of the legal field even though it seems rather plain on it's face. I've got a quick fix for you: jury nullification. In big civil cases with juries the corollary would be: vote for the little(r) guy.
Jury nullification is kind of a dangerous thing. I'm not saying that it should never happen, but it has historically been used for bad ends as well as good ones. Also, the more it is used, the more people become comfortable with the idea of a small group of people deciding if the law applies in a specific case. It's not that large of a step from a juror voting to acquit because he or she thinks the law is terrible or being misapplied to a juror voting to convict because he or she thinks that the law is terrible or being misapplied.
For a concrete example, take a Donald Trump rally from back in 2016. Violence happened at some of these events where attendees stuck protestors or hecklers, and Donald Trump often expressed approval of violence against protestors. Take a hypothetical world of common jury nullification where one of the attendees struck a protestor a few minutes after Trump expressed some approval of violence, and as a result Trump found himself in court on charges of inciting imminent lawless action. Trump probably did not violate the law, but in this alternate world where jury nullification happens a lot, a jury which does not agree with the First Amendment protecting calls for violence in the general future might find Trump guilty anyway. This would, in effect, be a jury nullification of that First Amendment protection occurring in the guise of the jury finding the defense inadequately arguing that Trump wasn't calling for violence immediately against the protestors present or something like that.
In general, I don't think juries should be directly ignoring the laws unless the law is so objectionable that they would never convict under that law. Good examples of this are jury nullification that happened during the prohibition, where juries found the ban on alcohol completely absurd and refused to convict people on it, or juries in the north refusing to convict people accused of harboring slaves in the years before the civil war. Jury nullification on a case by case basis leads to an example of terrible usage of jury nullification, where juries in the south after the civil war refused to convict white supremacists of murder.
|
I mean, first of all, Trump could appeal in your hypothetical example. Only not guilty verdicts are usually not up for appeal.
|
I'm just saying, if you were looking for a revolution in the prison system, legal representation, etc. is not jury nullification the means-at-hand for the revolutionary bricoleur?
|
On March 06 2018 07:58 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2018 07:53 zlefin wrote:
I see.
So what's the point of the bar exam then? just a way to screen out people who shouldn't even be trying? no longer necessary regulation that once had a use? Its a filter. Just like law school and LSAT. There was a day that you didn't need to attend law school to take the bar. But over time lawyers decided it would be better to have a minimum level of universal legal knowledge. When you become an attorney, you are admired to the state bar, which has a governing body. Attorneys police themselves when it comes to who can or can't practice law. In my state they take it very seriously and will crack down on attorneys who behave badly. Rhode Island, not so much. Though one attorney I know of did accuse a Judge of being part of a Zionist conspiracy, which was way to much for even Rhode Island.
I know this is off-topic but I must ask. Have you ever watched the wire? If so, would the lawyer who's always representing the Barksdale organisation not get disbarred for obvious corruption? Do you know real life lawyers who are dodgy?
It's such a TV trope that I end up flik-flakking on whether or not it reflects reality.
RE: Trumpisthegreatestpresidentevar: will the ongoing shitshow that is stuff like the Nunberg situation affect how people look back on his Presidency? I mean... this is insanity. And somehow, it never ends. Am I the only one who feels like The Mooch was years ago? It's like the compressed madness of this administration has collapsed into a time-distorting singularity.
|
So, with regards to the legal costs situation, i do have a question.
Do you not have a system where the loser pays (part of) the legal costs of the winner? And the court costs?
|
On March 06 2018 18:18 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2018 07:58 Plansix wrote:On March 06 2018 07:53 zlefin wrote:
I see.
So what's the point of the bar exam then? just a way to screen out people who shouldn't even be trying? no longer necessary regulation that once had a use? Its a filter. Just like law school and LSAT. There was a day that you didn't need to attend law school to take the bar. But over time lawyers decided it would be better to have a minimum level of universal legal knowledge. When you become an attorney, you are admired to the state bar, which has a governing body. Attorneys police themselves when it comes to who can or can't practice law. In my state they take it very seriously and will crack down on attorneys who behave badly. Rhode Island, not so much. Though one attorney I know of did accuse a Judge of being part of a Zionist conspiracy, which was way to much for even Rhode Island. I know this is off-topic but I must ask. Have you ever watched the wire? If so, would the lawyer who's always representing the Barksdale organisation not get disbarred for obvious corruption? Do you know real life lawyers who are dodgy? It's such a TV trope that I end up flik-flakking on whether or not it reflects reality. RE: Trumpisthegreatestpresidentevar: will the ongoing shitshow that is stuff like the Nunberg situation affect how people look back on his Presidency? I mean... this is insanity. And somehow, it never ends. Am I the only one who feels like The Mooch was years ago? It's like the compressed madness of this administration has collapsed into a time-distorting singularity.
There are absolutely lawyers who tiptoe around the line of illegality, many of them are quite good at what they do, but to the extent that shows try to display that kind of behavior, I'd say they fall short of recreating reality. The Wire, for all its quality, is full of pretty distended portrayals throughout.
On March 06 2018 20:54 Simberto wrote:
So, with regards to the legal costs situation, i do have a question.
Do you not have a system where the loser pays (part of) the legal costs of the winner? And the court costs?
Generally, the winner still pays for their court costs and attorney fees (the profession even has the gall to call it 'the American system'). However, there are various fee-shifting mechanisms that come into play with regards to particular kinds of cases, such as 1983 suits (deprivation of constitutional rights by a government actor) and whistleblower actions. There's also a sometimes available method of getting the other side to pay your attorney fees through establishing that their lawsuit was "frivolous," but that's an incredibly high bar and it rarely comes into play.
|
On March 06 2018 20:58 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2018 18:18 iamthedave wrote:On March 06 2018 07:58 Plansix wrote:On March 06 2018 07:53 zlefin wrote:
I see.
So what's the point of the bar exam then? just a way to screen out people who shouldn't even be trying? no longer necessary regulation that once had a use? Its a filter. Just like law school and LSAT. There was a day that you didn't need to attend law school to take the bar. But over time lawyers decided it would be better to have a minimum level of universal legal knowledge. When you become an attorney, you are admired to the state bar, which has a governing body. Attorneys police themselves when it comes to who can or can't practice law. In my state they take it very seriously and will crack down on attorneys who behave badly. Rhode Island, not so much. Though one attorney I know of did accuse a Judge of being part of a Zionist conspiracy, which was way to much for even Rhode Island. I know this is off-topic but I must ask. Have you ever watched the wire? If so, would the lawyer who's always representing the Barksdale organisation not get disbarred for obvious corruption? Do you know real life lawyers who are dodgy? It's such a TV trope that I end up flik-flakking on whether or not it reflects reality. RE: Trumpisthegreatestpresidentevar: will the ongoing shitshow that is stuff like the Nunberg situation affect how people look back on his Presidency? I mean... this is insanity. And somehow, it never ends. Am I the only one who feels like The Mooch was years ago? It's like the compressed madness of this administration has collapsed into a time-distorting singularity. There are absolutely lawyers who tiptoe around the line of illegality, many of them are quite good at what they do, but to the extent that shows try to display that kind of behavior, I'd say they fall short of recreating reality. The Wire, for all its quality, is full of pretty distended portrayals throughout. Show nested quote +On March 06 2018 20:54 Simberto wrote:
So, with regards to the legal costs situation, i do have a question.
Do you not have a system where the loser pays (part of) the legal costs of the winner? And the court costs? Generally, the winner still pays for their court costs and attorney fees (the profession even has the gall to call it 'the American system'). However, there are various fee-shifting mechanisms that come into play with regards to particular kinds of cases, such as 1983 suits (deprivation of constitutional rights by a government actor) and whistleblower actions. There's also a sometimes available method of getting the other side to pay your attorney fees through establishing that their lawsuit was "frivolous," but that's an incredibly high bar and it rarely comes into play.
So if you're a tenant and the landowner wants to breach contract and put you out of your home for no reason whatsoever, he can basically do just that, because you won't have money to pay for a lawsuit to stop him?
Or any of hundreds of similar situations (wrongful termination of employment is another big one) where one side is a wealthy party and the other poor?
|
On March 06 2018 21:22 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2018 20:58 farvacola wrote:On March 06 2018 18:18 iamthedave wrote:On March 06 2018 07:58 Plansix wrote:On March 06 2018 07:53 zlefin wrote:
I see.
So what's the point of the bar exam then? just a way to screen out people who shouldn't even be trying? no longer necessary regulation that once had a use? Its a filter. Just like law school and LSAT. There was a day that you didn't need to attend law school to take the bar. But over time lawyers decided it would be better to have a minimum level of universal legal knowledge. When you become an attorney, you are admired to the state bar, which has a governing body. Attorneys police themselves when it comes to who can or can't practice law. In my state they take it very seriously and will crack down on attorneys who behave badly. Rhode Island, not so much. Though one attorney I know of did accuse a Judge of being part of a Zionist conspiracy, which was way to much for even Rhode Island. I know this is off-topic but I must ask. Have you ever watched the wire? If so, would the lawyer who's always representing the Barksdale organisation not get disbarred for obvious corruption? Do you know real life lawyers who are dodgy? It's such a TV trope that I end up flik-flakking on whether or not it reflects reality. RE: Trumpisthegreatestpresidentevar: will the ongoing shitshow that is stuff like the Nunberg situation affect how people look back on his Presidency? I mean... this is insanity. And somehow, it never ends. Am I the only one who feels like The Mooch was years ago? It's like the compressed madness of this administration has collapsed into a time-distorting singularity. There are absolutely lawyers who tiptoe around the line of illegality, many of them are quite good at what they do, but to the extent that shows try to display that kind of behavior, I'd say they fall short of recreating reality. The Wire, for all its quality, is full of pretty distended portrayals throughout. On March 06 2018 20:54 Simberto wrote:
So, with regards to the legal costs situation, i do have a question.
Do you not have a system where the loser pays (part of) the legal costs of the winner? And the court costs? Generally, the winner still pays for their court costs and attorney fees (the profession even has the gall to call it 'the American system'). However, there are various fee-shifting mechanisms that come into play with regards to particular kinds of cases, such as 1983 suits (deprivation of constitutional rights by a government actor) and whistleblower actions. There's also a sometimes available method of getting the other side to pay your attorney fees through establishing that their lawsuit was "frivolous," but that's an incredibly high bar and it rarely comes into play. So if you're a tenant and the landowner wants to breach contract and put you out of your home for no reason whatsoever, he can basically do just that, because you won't have money to pay for a lawsuit to stop him? Or any of hundreds of similar situations (wrongful termination of employment is another big one) where one side is a wealthy party and the other poor?
That's gonna depend heavily on the state and the legal action involved; for example, landlord/tenant law, outside the Federal Housing Act and a few other federal laws, is determined by state law and many have different approaches to the problems you're describing (some are landlord friendly, some are not). Having brought a breach of lease contract action against my landlord prior to even becoming lawyer, I'll say that most individual (non-multiunit/developer) landlord/tenant disputes can be handled with only the assistance of a legal aid consultation and a willingness to pay like 70 bucks in filing fees.
And that's all only relevant to small disputes where the damages will be minor; once you get above 10-15k in damages, many lawyers will take your case on a contingency basis and only assess a fee if you win. This is especially common in the wrongful termination of employment context.
In my opinion, this could all be fixed with better legal aid funding and less emphasis on courts balancing their budgets on entrance fees rather than changing the way that the fees of litigation are assessed.
|
Increased and directed legal aid funding goes a long way to improving outcomes in court. A lot of low level litigation and basic contract disputes can be handled pretty easily if there are attorneys on either end of the case. Personally, I will take dealing with an attorney over a pro se litigant.
|
SEOUL, South Korea — North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong-un, has told South Korean envoys that his country is willing to begin negotiations with the United States on abandoning its nuclear weapons and that it would suspend all nuclear and missile tests while it is engaged in such talks, South Korean officials said on Tuesday.
During the envoys’ two-day visit to Pyongyang, the North’s capital, which ended on Tuesday, the two Koreas also agreed to hold a summit meeting between Mr. Kim and President Moon Jae-in of South Korea on the countries’ border in late April, Mr. Moon’s office said in a statement.
“The North Korean side clearly stated its willingness to denuclearize,” the statement said. “It made it clear that it would have no reason to keep nuclear weapons if the military threat to the North was eliminated and its security guaranteed.”
If the statement is corroborated by North Korea, it would be the first time Mr. Kim has indicated that his government is willing to discuss giving up nuclear weapons in return for security guarantees from the United States. Until now, North Korea has said its nuclear weapons were not for bargaining away.
Source
First reported in the NK thread. Thought I would post it here as well.
|
Trump did good. Guess he’s more effective than Obama at this peace talk thing after all.
|
On March 06 2018 23:28 LegalLord wrote:
Trump did good. Guess he’s more effective than Obama at this peace talk thing after all.
good joke; was worth a helpful laugh.
|
On March 06 2018 23:28 LegalLord wrote:
Trump did good. Guess he’s more effective than Obama at this peace talk thing after all.
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/6rkUzCe.png)
User was warned for this post
|
5930 Posts
On March 06 2018 23:28 LegalLord wrote:
Trump did good. Guess he’s more effective than Obama at this peace talk thing after all.
What makes you think that? North Korea didn't really promise to denuclearize prior to starting talks nor denuclearize full stop. Just about everything is suggesting this is going to go the way of previous diplomatic efforts where North Korea gets a whole bunch of aid while not really doing anything different from what they've been doing for ages.
|
On March 07 2018 00:06 Womwomwom wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2018 23:28 LegalLord wrote:
Trump did good. Guess he’s more effective than Obama at this peace talk thing after all. What makes you think that? North Korea didn't really promise to denuclearize prior to starting talks nor denuclearize full stop. Just about everything is suggesting this is going to go the way of previous diplomatic efforts where North Korea gets a whole bunch of aid while not really doing anything different from what they've been doing for ages.
It’s a joke or a clever attempt at trolling. Don’t take the bait either way.
|
On March 06 2018 23:29 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2018 23:28 LegalLord wrote:
Trump did good. Guess he’s more effective than Obama at this peace talk thing after all. good joke; was worth a helpful laugh.
Shortly after Obama's election and after no noteworthy accomplishments to merit it, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize (which is admittedly not historically credible as being merit-based to begin with). Why? For political reasons, a show of good faith, and for a speech he gave committing to nuclear nonproliferation. During his presidency the DPRK tested nuclear weapons 4 times, and we are coming up (in May) on the date when the DPRK will have had a monopoly on nuclear testing, 100% of worldwide nuclear tests having been conducted there, for the last 20 years. This isn't a joke or meme, everyone since Clinton has gravely failed, dropped the ball.
|
That can all be true while still being totally irrelevant to the point that Trump deserves no credit for recent developments.
|
On March 07 2018 00:10 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2018 23:29 zlefin wrote:On March 06 2018 23:28 LegalLord wrote:
Trump did good. Guess he’s more effective than Obama at this peace talk thing after all. good joke; was worth a helpful laugh. Shortly after Obama's election and after no noteworthy accomplishments to merit it, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize (which is admittedly not historically credible as being merit-based to begin with). Why? For political reasons, a show of good faith, and for a speech he gave committing to nuclear nonproliferation. During his presidency the DPRK tested nuclear weapons 4 times, and we are coming up (in May) on the date when the DPRK will have had a monopoly on nuclear testing, 100% of worldwide nuclear tests having been conducted there, for the last 20 years. This isn't a joke or meme, everyone since Clinton has gravely failed, dropped the ball.
no indication that trump has done any better; and therefore legallord's remark was a joke.
while the issue is serious; I rightly noted that a joke was a joke.
I'm not sure what the rest of your points have to do with my remark. i.e. while your points have merit on their own, they don't seem pertinent as a response to me; unless it's on the narrow point that you don' tlike to hear people joke about such a serious issue.
|
On March 07 2018 00:10 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2018 23:29 zlefin wrote:On March 06 2018 23:28 LegalLord wrote:
Trump did good. Guess he’s more effective than Obama at this peace talk thing after all. good joke; was worth a helpful laugh. Shortly after Obama's election and after no noteworthy accomplishments to merit it, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize (which is admittedly not historically credible as being merit-based to begin with). Why? For political reasons, a show of good faith, and for a speech he gave committing to nuclear nonproliferation. During his presidency the DPRK tested nuclear weapons 4 times, and we are coming up (in May) on the date when the DPRK will have had a monopoly on nuclear testing, 100% of worldwide nuclear tests having been conducted there, for the last 20 years. This isn't a joke or meme, everyone since Clinton has gravely failed, dropped the ball.
Is it not more likely that South Korea's new pro-unification PM said something to NK than it is that Trump's game of 'my button is bigger than yours' caused the movement?
If anything, this suggests Trump is getting in the way, since NK has said it's not willing to do anything unless the threat (I.E. the US) goes away.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
